【正文】 which is then used correctly two sentences later (“influential”). Overall, this is a successful response and scored within (though perhaps not at the top of) the 5 level. TPO3（滿分范文） The lecture revises the idea presented in the text, that Rembrandt was not the artist who painted the famous painting Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet”. The inconsistency between the white cap, which identifies the woman as a servant, and the expensive fur collar she wears dissolves as the Professor explains that the fur collar was apparently painted over the original painting to increase its worth by displaying an aristocratic woman. In addition, the assumption that light and shadow in the painting do not fit together is refuted by the fact that in the original painting, the woman wears a light cloth that illuminated her face. Thus the presentation of light and shadow was indeed very realistic and accurate, as it is characteristic of Rembrandt’s paintings. Finally, the mystery of the panel consisting of patches glued together is also solved in the lecture. Actually, the wood panel was later enlarged to make it more grand and valuable, but the original painting was painted on a single panel, as Rembrandt would have done it. Furthermore, the wood is of the same tree used in other Rembrandt paintings, like the SelfPortrait with a Hat”. All this information points to Rembrandt as the painter of the controversial painting. TPO4（滿分版）： The professor actually contradicts the statements made in the passage. She is of the view that dinosaurs are not endotherms . they were not able to keep their body temperature at a constant rate. The professor contradicts the issue of dinosaurs being endotherms based on the availability of fossils being available in the polar regions, she say that the polar regions in those days were not as cold as they are today at least warm enough for dinosaurs to live. During harsh winters she says that there is a possibility of the dinosaurs actually migrating to warmer regions. The issue of leg position and movement being used as a reason to classify the dinosaurs as endotherms does not please the professor either. She says that dinosaurs had legs under their bodies to support their huge bodies the legs under the body of the dinosaur were actually to support the huge weight of the dinosaur and not to provide it with a body structure like endotherms(which is actually suited for running). The professor acknowledges the presence of haversian canals but also points out that that the fossils show the presence of growth rings. These rings occur due to the thickening of the bone. The thickening indicates that the dinosaurs weren’t actually growing continuously but were experiencing periods of rapid growth and periods of no growth in succession. This pattern. she says is characteristic of non endothermic animals. Thus it can be inferred that the professor challenges the passage by giving reasons as to why she thinks that the dinosaur is not an endotherm. Description of Response: Despite initial appearances, this response largely succeeds in clearly and accurately presenting how the lecture points take issue with the points in the reading passage that dinosaurs were endotherms. The first point regarding dinosaurs in polar regions could be a bit clearer. Otherwise, the response mainly suffers from typographical errors, but these are not regarded as major problems。 it is obvious that the writer has good control of structure and vocabulary and the ability to use these to convey in an organized and logical manner what has been understood and asked. TPO 5： The author of the reading passage proposes three theories as likely explanations of the primary function of Chaco Canyon houses, grant structures built in the I2th century. The lecturer, however, points to the inaccuracies in each of these theories. The lecturer argues that the modest number of fireplaces in these structures is in contradiction with the huge size of these houses, indicating that these structures could not have been used for Residential purposes. The Reading, however, draws parisons between the Chaco houses and other similar large Residential structures in support of the Residential theory. The second theory, that the houses were used for food storage, is also rejected by the lecturer. He explains that a place that had been used for storing maize would have many traces of scattered Maize, which is not the case in the area of the Chaco Canyon houses. This proves that the food storage theory is unlikely. Finally, regarding the third theory, the ceremony theory39。39。, the lecturer contends that the presence op broken pots close to the great houses does not offer sufficient proof that this was a place for ceremonial activities. He argues that there are other materials such as pieces of construction trash found along with the broken pots, which suggest that these pots were probably not used for ceremon