The reading passage contend that the origin of Scotland fort with virtrified material can be fully expressed by three reasons. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contridict this argument.
First, the speaker argues that it is not matched with the place of signal fire. In other words, 1 or 2 sites was used and does not changed over time. By the fact of signal fire place, it might have to affect few areas. However, entire place was virtrified. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that signal fire melted the rock and made it vertrified.
Second, according to the lecturer, lighting the origin of virtrified fort is problematic. The glass-like place is large, so dozen of lighting is required. Also, there is no chance that repeated lighting at the same area. Moreover, uneven surface normally is changed to poor condition by wearing. This refutes the reading passage’s assertion that lighting is the reasons of vertified fort.
The final point made by the lecture is that there is no evidence of vocanic activities. Therefore, contructor had to transpose materials. Also they used local materials because there are lack of roads. This counters the reading passage’s argument that volcanic rock is material of Scotland fort.
|