▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author's claim that Carolina Bays was the result of meteorite impacts. The professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point. First, the professor in the lecture insists that the oval shape of it doesn't prove the fact that it was caused by meteorite impacts. To be specific, the opposite phenomenon is right. When the meteorite crashes something, the impacts must be emerged equal in all direction. So the shape of it will be circular. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that oval shape was formed by meteorite effects because the momentum leads it to move forward and downward when hitting it. Next, the professor in the lecture argues that magnetic irregularities are not a foolproof testament. To be specific, that time the data was collected, there was not enough technology to amass reliable information about the circumstance. Therefore, there were lots of possibilities that magnetic irregularities came from inaccurate and equipment. This counters the reading passage's assertion that abnormality of magnetic activity that usually was found out at the place formed by meteorites was good evidence. Finally, the professor in the lecture contends that the discovery of nanodiamonds can not prove the author's claim. For example, this special component is surely discovered not only in the place formed by meteorites, but also in the other places where caused by massive fire. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that the presence of this materials is the indicator that it was formed by meteorites because it was many discovered in those places. |