TOEFL Writing TPO39 Task1 Integrated Writing, Triassic Extinction
-
March 11, 2020 at 4:30 am
TOEFL Writing TPO39 Task1 Integrated Writing, Triassic Extinction
The reading passage and the listening material have divergent views on possible explanations for the extinction in the end of the Triassic period. Although the author proposes several explanations, these are all contradicted by the following lecture.
Firstly, the writer claims that a gradual fall in sea levels might have caused this extinction by destroying the coastal ecosystem. However, the speaker states that even though the sea levels often went down in the Triassic period, the coastal and the shallow water ecosystems were good at adapting these changes that happened so gradually. To be more specific, she gives the fact that the decline in sea levels lasted for several millions of year, and a more sudden change is required to have caused such an extinction.
Secondly, the passage illustrates that a climate cooling which was caused by sulfur dioxide released by volcanoes might have resulted in the extinction. Nevertheless, the professor does not think so. According to her, sulfur dioxide can only cause the climate cooling for a relative short period of time when the sulfur dioxide still present. She further presents that the sulfur dioxide was cleared out: it combined with water in the atmosphere and fell back on Earth in rains. Therefore, the sulfur dioxide did not stay long enough in the atmosphere to result in the extinction.
Finally, the author says that an asteroid collision with Earth that resulted in a block of sunlight might have caused the extinction. In contrast, the lecturer views this issue from an opposite angle. She holds the opinion that because scientists have only found a crater that is dated before the extinction, the author’s explanation is not good. She states that the crater is dated too long before the extinction, so it has nothing to do with it.
Therefore, according to the lecturer, although the author’s proposal may seem plausible, none of them is a good explanation.
March 11, 2020 at 2:39 pmScore: ungraded
Issues:
- About 60% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
- About 40% of the sentences are passive. Convert some of them into their active counterparts.
I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.
April 6, 2020 at 4:39 amTPO39 Triassic Extinction
The reading passage and the listening material have divergent views on possible explanations for extinction at the end of the Triassic period. Although the author proposes several theories, these are all contradicted by the following lecture.Firstly, the writer claims that a gradual fall in sea levels might have caused this extinction by destroying the coastal ecosystem. However, the speaker states that even though the sea levels often went down in the Triassic period, the shallow water ecosystems were good at adapting these changes that happened so gradually. To be more specific, she gives the fact that the decline in sea levels lasted for several millions of years, and a more sudden change is required to have caused such extinction.
Secondly, the passage illustrates that volcanic activities might have released sulfur dioxide, resulting in climate cooling. This cooling might then have caused extinction. Nevertheless, the professor does not think so. According to her, sulfur dioxide can only cause climate cooling for a relative short period of time. Sulfur dioxide only has an effect when it still presents. She further presents that the sulfur dioxide combined with water in the atmosphere and fell back on Earth in rains. This means that sulfur dioxide soon got cleared out. Therefore, the sulfur dioxide did not stay long enough in the atmosphere to result in extinction.
Finally, the author says that an asteroid collision with Earth that resulted in a block of sunlight might have caused the extinction. In contrast, the lecturer views this issue from an opposite angle. She holds the opinion that the author’s explanation is not good. She presents the fact that scientists have only found one crater and dated that crater long before extinction. Since the possible collision happened too long before extinction, it cannot be the cause.
Therefore, according to the lecturer, although the author’s proposal may seem plausible, none of them is a good explanation.
April 8, 2020 at 4:09 pmInvalid [ You have to complete the revision of one essay prior to submitting the other essay.]
