integrated essay: explosion

The written article states that the great explosion in Tunguska is related with methane gas and provides three reasons of support. On the other hand, the professor explains that an asteroid is the cause of this event and he refutes each of the author’s points.

Firstly, the reading claims that there is no evidence from studies showing presentation of an asteroid during the explosion. The lecturer refutes this point by stating some evidence. He says that according to eye witnesses there was a bright light in the sky before the massive explosion, and this light suggests that an asteroid entered the atmosphere.

Secondly, the article posits that large craters and other impacts of asteroid must be found in the place of explosion, while nothing was observed in Tunguska. However, the professor says that the asteroid exploded before reaching the ground. According to him, for this reason the asteroid couldn’t cause any impact. Furthermore, the speaker describes that no rocks of the asteroid was found since maybe it washed away by the sea or the rocks were in small quantities.

Finally, the author assumes that Tunguska is known for having high levels of methane gas, which raises the probability that methane gas is the real cause of explosion. On the contrary, the professor strongly opposes this idea and he explains that Tunguska never had enough methane gas for explosion, since this explosion needs big volume of methane gas. Moreover, he states that no fires were observed in the forest. However, it is obvious that the methane gas explosion must create some fire.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hello Kitos, thanks !!

TOEFL listening discussions: What is the design of the sweatshirt?

The written article states that the great explosion in Tunguska is related with methane gas and provides three reasons of support. On the other hand, the professor explains that an asteroid was the cause of this event and he refutes each of the author’s points.

Firstly, the reading claims that there is no evidence from studies showing presentation of an asteroid during the explosion. The lecturer refutes this point by stating some evidence. He says that according to eye witnesses there was a bright light in the sky before the massive explosion, and this light suggests that an asteroid entered the atmosphere.

Secondly, the article posits that large craters and other impacts of asteroid must be found in the place of explosion, while nothing was observed in Tunguska. However, the professor says that the asteroid exploded before reaching the ground. According to him, for this reason the asteroid couldn’t cause any impact. Furthermore, the speaker describes that no rocks of the asteroid were found since maybe they were washed away by the sea, or the rocks were in small quantities.

Finally, the author assumes that Tunguska is known for having high levels of methane gas, which raises the probability that methane gas is the real cause of explosion. On the contrary, the professor strongly opposes this idea and he explains that Tunguska never had enough methane gas for an explosion, since this explosion needed a huge volume of methane gas. Moreover, he states that no fires were observed in the forest. However, it is obvious that a methane gas explosion must create some fire.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Not bad Altun.

Kitos. 8/10

The written article states that the great explosion in Tunguska is related with methane gas and provides three reasons of support. On the other hand, the professor explains that an asteroid iswas the cause of this event and he refutes each of the author’s points.

Firstly, the reading claims that there is no evidence from studies showing presentation of an asteroid during the explosion. The lecturer refutes this point by stating some evidence. He says that according to eye witnesses there was a bright light in the sky before the massive explosion, and this light suggests that an asteroid entered the atmosphere.

Secondly, the article posits that large craters and other impacts of asteroid must be found in the place of explosion, while nothing was observed in Tunguska. However, the professor says that the asteroid exploded before reaching the ground. According to him, for this reason the asteroid couldn’t cause any impact. Furthermore, the speaker describes that no rocks of the asteroid were found since maybe they were washed away by the sea, or the rocks were in small quantities.

Finally, the author assumes that Tunguska is known for having high levels of methane gas, which raises the probability that methane gas is the real cause of explosion. On the contrary, the professor strongly opposes this idea and he explains that Tunguska never had enough methane gas for an explosion, since this explosion needed bighuge volume of methane gas. Moreover, he states that no fires were observed in the forest. However, it is obvious that a methane gas explosion must create some fire.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;
What is wrong here ?? :((, there are not so many mistakes and also i wrote all points made by the lecturer and the author, ??
thanks again