The passage introduces three reasons why [main idea from reading: e.g., professors should appear on TV]: [Reason 1] [Reason 2] [Reason 3] However, the lecture challenges each of these points., First, the reading claims that [point 1 from reading — e.g., it builds the professor’s reputation]. In contrast, the speaker argues that [main point from lecture — e.g., professors may be seen as less serious by their peers]. As a result, [consequence mentioned in the lecture — e.g., they may miss out on academic opportunities such as conferences and research funding]., Second, the passage states that [point 2 from reading — e.g., it benefits the university’s reputation]. The lecturer refutes this by pointing out that [main lecture idea — e.g., TV appearances take up valuable time]. He/ She explains that [additional support from lecture — e.g., time spent preparing for TV could be used for teaching or research instead]., Third, the author of the reading asserts that [point 3 from reading — e.g., it helps educate the public]. The lecturer, however, disagrees, explaining that [main opposing point from lecture — e.g., TV shows usually do not cover in-depth content]. Rather than presenting complex research, [lecture elaboration — e.g., networks ask for simplified background info that even journalists could explain]., In conclusion, the lecture casts doubt on the reading by arguing that [summary — e.g., professors appearing on TV may face drawbacks in their academic careers and do not necessarily help the public or their universities]..

Learning Hub_Chapter10_Lesson2_Slide54

印刷
埋め込み

リーダーボード

表示スタイル

オプション

テンプレートを切り替える

自動保存: を復元しますか?