问答题
Directions
: Give yourself 3 minutes to read the passage.
Archaeologists have recently found a fossil of a 150-million-year-old mammal known as Repenomamus robustus (R. robustus) . Interestingly, the mammal"s stomach contained the remains of a psittacosaur dinosaur. Some researchers have therefore suggested that R. robustus was an active hunter of dinosaurs. However, a closer analysis has made the hypothesis that R. robustus was an active hunter unlikely. It was probably just a scavenger that sometimes fed on dinosaur eggs containing unhatched dinosaurs.
First, R. robustus , like most mammals living 150 million years ago, was small—only about the size of a domestic cat. It was much smaller than psittacosaurs, which were almost two meters tall when full grown. Given this size difference, it is unlikely that R. robustus would have been able to successfully hunt psittacosaurs or similar dinosaurs.
Second, the legs of R. robustus appear much more suited for scavenging than hunting: they were short and positioned somewhat to the side rather than directly underneath the animal. These features suggest that R. robustus did not chase after prey. Psittacosaurs—the type of dinosaur found in the stomach of R. robustus —were fast moving. It is unlikely that they would have been caught by such short-legged animals.
Third, the dinosaur bones inside the stomach of the the R. robustus provide no evidence to support the idea that the dinosaur had been actively hunted. When an animal has been hunted and eaten by another animal, there are usually teeth marks on the bones of the animal that was eaten. But the bones of the psittacosaur inside the R. robustus stomach do not have teeth marks. This suggests that R. robustus found an unguarded dinosaur nest with eggs and simply swallowed an egg with the small psittacosaur still inside the eggshell.
Directions : You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will be judged on the basis of the quality of your writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and their relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.
Archaeologists have recently found a fossil of a 150-million-year-old mammal known as Repenomamus robustus (R. robustus) . Interestingly, the mammal"s stomach contained the remains of a psittacosaur dinosaur. Some researchers have therefore suggested that R. robustus was an active hunter of dinosaurs. However, a closer analysis has made the hypothesis that R. robustus was an active hunter unlikely. It was probably just a scavenger that sometimes fed on dinosaur eggs containing unhatched dinosaurs.
First, R. robustus , like most mammals living 150 million years ago, was small—only about the size of a domestic cat. It was much smaller than psittacosaurs, which were almost two meters tall when full grown. Given this size difference, it is unlikely that R. robustus would have been able to successfully hunt psittacosaurs or similar dinosaurs.
Second, the legs of R. robustus appear much more suited for scavenging than hunting: they were short and positioned somewhat to the side rather than directly underneath the animal. These features suggest that R. robustus did not chase after prey. Psittacosaurs—the type of dinosaur found in the stomach of R. robustus —were fast moving. It is unlikely that they would have been caught by such short-legged animals.
Third, the dinosaur bones inside the stomach of the the R. robustus provide no evidence to support the idea that the dinosaur had been actively hunted. When an animal has been hunted and eaten by another animal, there are usually teeth marks on the bones of the animal that was eaten. But the bones of the psittacosaur inside the R. robustus stomach do not have teeth marks. This suggests that R. robustus found an unguarded dinosaur nest with eggs and simply swallowed an egg with the small psittacosaur still inside the eggshell.
Directions : You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will be judged on the basis of the quality of your writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and their relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.
【正确答案】
【答案解析】Prompt
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they respond to the specific points made in the reading passage. Topic Notes
The reading discusses three reasons to believe that a small mammal, R. robustus, could not have been an active hunter (perhaps it was a scavenger that sometimes fed on unhatched eggs of the psitticosaur dinosaur), but the lecturer presents reasons why each of these three reasons are unconvincing.
Responses with scores of 4 and 5 typically discuss all three points in the table.
Sample Response
The lecture completely refutes the reading passage. The professor use the following points to indicate that R. robustus could have been actively hunting baby psittacosaur and similar sized baby dinosaurs.
First, although R. robustus was small, it was much bigger than baby psittacosaurs dinosaur, more than twice in size. This means R. robustus was big enough to hunt baby psittacosaurs.
Second, even though R. robustus had short legs and they were positioned somewhat to the side, these features are not sufficient indications that R. robustus could not run as fast enough to be successful predator. The professor pointed out that Tasmanian Devil, a morden-day successful predator whose legs share similar "disadvantages", can run as fast as 50 KM/H and is an active and very successful hunter today. So its possible R. robustus could run just as fast and therefore be as successful in hunting.
Last but not the least, lack of teeth marks on the dinosaur bones is not enough evidence to support conclusion that the dinosaur was not actively hunted. Studies of fossil records show that though R. robustus had powerful jaws but also, it did not use its back-teeth for chewing because its back teeth had no wear and tear. So we can also guess that R. robustus could had swallowed the baby dinosaur whole and therefore not leaving any teeth marks.
Rater Comments
This response earns a score of 5. Grammatical errors are few and minor. This response clearly conveys the three main points from the lecture and shows how those points challenge the information from the three points in the reading passage. Note that the response does not discuss the dinosaur egg to get the point across as to why the bones of the prey did not contain teeth marks; although this would have been helpful, it could be argued that this is not essential information for conveying the point clearly. Therefore, even though this last sentence is not quite as clear as the rest of this response, holistically, it still conveys all of the relevant information with sufficient clarity to rate a score of 5. [听力原文]
Narrator
Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Professor
It"s quite possible that R. robustus actively chased and hunted moving dinosaurs. It was not just a scavenger that ate eggs.
First, about R. robustus being too small to hunt dinosaurs. Sure, it would"ve been too small to have hunted a full-grown psittacosaur, but that doesn"t mean it couldn"t have hunted baby dinosaurs. R. robustus was considerably bigger than a baby psittacosaur would have been, which supports the idea that R. robustus was a hunter. Ya see, most predators have at least twice the mass of the animals they prey on, and R. robustus was more than twice the mass of the dinosaur in its stomach. Those size relations are exactly what we would expect to find if R. robustus hunted baby psittacosaurs and similarly sized dinosaurs.
Second, the length and position of R. robustus"s legs. Well, there"s a modern mammal known as the Tasmanian Devil.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they respond to the specific points made in the reading passage. Topic Notes
The reading discusses three reasons to believe that a small mammal, R. robustus, could not have been an active hunter (perhaps it was a scavenger that sometimes fed on unhatched eggs of the psitticosaur dinosaur), but the lecturer presents reasons why each of these three reasons are unconvincing.
Responses with scores of 4 and 5 typically discuss all three points in the table.
Sample Response
The lecture completely refutes the reading passage. The professor use the following points to indicate that R. robustus could have been actively hunting baby psittacosaur and similar sized baby dinosaurs.
First, although R. robustus was small, it was much bigger than baby psittacosaurs dinosaur, more than twice in size. This means R. robustus was big enough to hunt baby psittacosaurs.
Second, even though R. robustus had short legs and they were positioned somewhat to the side, these features are not sufficient indications that R. robustus could not run as fast enough to be successful predator. The professor pointed out that Tasmanian Devil, a morden-day successful predator whose legs share similar "disadvantages", can run as fast as 50 KM/H and is an active and very successful hunter today. So its possible R. robustus could run just as fast and therefore be as successful in hunting.
Last but not the least, lack of teeth marks on the dinosaur bones is not enough evidence to support conclusion that the dinosaur was not actively hunted. Studies of fossil records show that though R. robustus had powerful jaws but also, it did not use its back-teeth for chewing because its back teeth had no wear and tear. So we can also guess that R. robustus could had swallowed the baby dinosaur whole and therefore not leaving any teeth marks.
Rater Comments
This response earns a score of 5. Grammatical errors are few and minor. This response clearly conveys the three main points from the lecture and shows how those points challenge the information from the three points in the reading passage. Note that the response does not discuss the dinosaur egg to get the point across as to why the bones of the prey did not contain teeth marks; although this would have been helpful, it could be argued that this is not essential information for conveying the point clearly. Therefore, even though this last sentence is not quite as clear as the rest of this response, holistically, it still conveys all of the relevant information with sufficient clarity to rate a score of 5. [听力原文]
Narrator
Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Professor
It"s quite possible that R. robustus actively chased and hunted moving dinosaurs. It was not just a scavenger that ate eggs.
First, about R. robustus being too small to hunt dinosaurs. Sure, it would"ve been too small to have hunted a full-grown psittacosaur, but that doesn"t mean it couldn"t have hunted baby dinosaurs. R. robustus was considerably bigger than a baby psittacosaur would have been, which supports the idea that R. robustus was a hunter. Ya see, most predators have at least twice the mass of the animals they prey on, and R. robustus was more than twice the mass of the dinosaur in its stomach. Those size relations are exactly what we would expect to find if R. robustus hunted baby psittacosaurs and similarly sized dinosaurs.
Second, the length and position of R. robustus"s legs. Well, there"s a modern mammal known as the Tasmanian Devil.