[문제] The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that it has become a more important form of documentation than written records.
클린턴 전 미국 대통령도 르윈스키 스캔들에 휘말렸을 때 비디오 증언을 택했다.
비디오카메라는 현대생활에서 정확하고 믿을 수 있는 기록을 제공하기에 글로 쓰인 기록보다는 좀더 중요한 형태의 문서로 받아들여지고 있다. - GRE Issue
[학생 작문] In modern society,  it has been controversial whether written records  become  less important form of documentation than video records. Some people say that the video records  dominate written records because they provide  vivid and realistic information. However, I  oppose the perspective that the written records have lost  the importance in documentation compared to  the video records. This is because  the video records can be fabricated ,  and they are not useful in contract or legal documentation.
First, it is possible that video records can be manipulated  by the creator’s purpose through  the highly developed technologies. We can easily see this aspect in  the movies. For example, even the old movie ‘Superman’ could show  ‘flying human.’ From the technologies  in these days, we can watch movies such as ‘Star wars Episode III’ showing realistic  fight between characters in  the space. Technological development has both good  side and bad  side. The good side is shown before by fantastic movies, while the bad side resides in opening possibilities in fabricating video for editor’s purpose. There was a  pseudo religious leader in Korea who had been selling  so called ‘Mu An Sweet Water.’ He fooled many people by showing a video  that created by his fellows. The video exaggerated the effect of the water by showing people who  claims that their diseases were cured by the water. From this example, we see that video records are sometimes not reliable.
Also, video records have their limit in contract or legal documentation. For example, a contract between a business owner and another owner may contain vast information that  they cannot be represented in a video record. They may  have various  adjustments of various conflicting situations such as trade between the two companies.  Moreover, a testimony which is a form of legal document can be made in several ways. However, in many countries,  video-recorded testimony is not effective. For example in Korea,  there was person who recorded his testimony by video camera, but the person could not make the testimony effective because that was a video record. From this example,  we see that the written documents are more important that video records in some cases.
In sum, I conclude that written records are more essential than video records because the video records can be  improvised by editor’s purpose and they lose reliability, and some documentations cannot be complete understandable without written documents.
Comment : The essay has a certain flow and demonstrates a basic, functional understanding of writing, grammar, spelling, etc. Although there are some awkward expressions here and there, it is quite clear that the author possesses an intermediate to advanced level of English writing skills.
The greatest problem lies not in style, however, but in LOGIC. His argument simply is not sustainable. He uses two main arguments: 1) video testimony can be fabricated and forged; and 2) it is not understandable in legal or business contracts.
The arguments are too vague and generic. In fact, they are arbitrary. Moreover, the examples he uses are very weak, if not silly. ‘Superman’ ‘Star Wars’, personal anecdotes, and a commercial for water. One does not use these as SPECIFC examples to support a case! And forged/counterfeit/altered documents can be made just as easily with written documents as with video documents. So that point is not so convincing.
Secondly, videotaped testimony is quite common these days, even used during former President Clinton’s deposition during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The argument in this essay is too simplistic: 1) videotaped testimony is not effective. However, there is no supporting evidence. There isn’t a well thought-out argument.
The deeper problem, I am afraid, is that the essay was not planned very carefully. It seems as though the writer just went with the first two thoughts that came to mind and then weakly tried to support them.
This is a very difficult topic. I agree that it would require much deeper thought and perhaps there wasn’t enough time. Still, it is best to avoid making superficial pop cultural references out of context. I believe the writer can STILL keep some of his basic ideas, but transform them into a better argument, For example, try to develop an overall logic such as:
Video does not and cannot capture all aspects of reality. Video captures the superficial, external, and outer image, but cannot capture internal nuances, intentions, thoughts, and feelings.
Video can be deceptive and can distort precisely because it is so mimetic, or lifelike.
Written documentation will probably always have to go hand in hand with visual documentation.
Remember: the essay thesis does not say that video is better for business or legal contracts; it only asserts that it has become MORE IMPORTANT than written documentation for an AUTHENTIC and CONVINCING RECORD OF CONTEMPORARY LIFE.
이 에세이는 어느 정도 글의 흐름이 자연스럽게 전개되고 있습니다. 또 글쓰기, 문법, 스펠링 등에 대해 기본으로 이해하고 있음을 보여주고 있습니다. 비록 몇 군데 적합하지 않은 표현이 있지만, 글쓴이는 중급에서 고급에 이르는 영어작문 기술을 습득하고 있음을 잘 보여주고 있습니다.
가장 큰 문제는 스타일이 아니라 논리에 있습니다. 글쓴이의 논점에 설득력이 떨어집니다. 글쓴이는 두 가지 논점을 사용하고 있습니다.
1) video testimony can be fabricated and forged; and
2) it is not understandable in legal or business contracts.
이 두 논점은 모호하며 지나치게 포괄적입니다. 사실 자의적이라고 할 수 있습니다. 게다가 사례가 적절치 않습니다. 자기의 주장을 뒷받침하기 위해서는 구체적인 예를 사용해야 합니다.
주간동아 2007.08.14 598호 (p92~93)