▶ Your Answer : In this set of issues, both the reading passage and the speaker discuss several aspects of whether there are possible theories about Teotihuacan’s collapse or not. The lecturer argues that there are not convincing theories about the collapse of Teotihuacan. This casts doubt the reading passage’s claim that Teotihuacan’s collapse can be explained by several theories. To begin with, in the response to the reading, the speaker discusses that only small fractions of entire city complex were burnt. It was not big damage to Teotihuacan people. Also, after burnt the city, they still lived in the city. The evidence is that there were a lot of arts artifacts and crafts after the fire. This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that Teotihuacan’s people did not try recover after fire. On top of that, the speaker challenges by stating that drought was regularly occurred in an ancient Mexico. So, the lecturer asserts that Teotihuacan people experienced regularly limited rainfall. Also, they made irrigation field. Due to irrigation, irrigation helped to Teotihuacan's living. it could not make sense, it caused Teotihuacan’s collapse. This refutes the reading passage’s claim that experienced serious drought can lead to the destruction. Finally, the speaker refutes the reading by saying that deforestation occurred before Teotihuacan collapsed. This is because, Teotihuacan people were traded such as woods they needed. It could not lead to collapse. This opposes the reading passage’s claim that too much destroy forest resulted in Teotihuacan collapsed. |