▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer argues that the Anasazi
civilization disappearance did not happen because of severe drought. This
directly contradicts the reading passage’s claim that the drought had the civilization
marred.
First, the lecturer points out bones. Even
though the bones remained from the Anasazi residents showed some malfunctioning
vestige, as the passage says, this does not indicate that it was caused from low
crops from the drought. It was found that most of children of Anasazi people
had common malnutrition because the people spent their food for religious
ceremonies instead, not feeding their children.
Next, the abandoned settlements also does
not indicate that the drought was the factor of its demise. The reading passage
mentions that the remained settlements were sealed to be protected and preserved
to utilize for the people again when they came back after fleeing from the
drought. However, according to the lecturer, they did not come back really even
if the drought ended up soon after they left their city. They should have come
back to their city when the drought was finished if they really fled from the
drought.
Lastly, their new place was not abundant
with water supply. If they left for other region to gain enough water supply
escaping from the drought, the new place must be
abundant with water, as the passage says. However, their new place was high-elevated
region, which was not proper for agriculture. This also shows that they did not
leave because of the drought.
|