▶ Your Answer : The reading passage argues that the fall of Annasazi population, in an area where they used to be flourished, during the end of the thirteenth century would be because of a severe drought. However, the lecturer casts doubt on this argument by asserting that there are many controversies on this issues.
First of all, lecturer maintains that bones from the Annasazi’s historical sites did not mean anything. This is because, at that time, malnutrition like vitamin deficiencies was very common among the people. Furthermore, they were also having a hard time with malnutrition even when foods they could eat were abundant. This refutes the reading passage’s argument that bones found on the Assnasozi graves prove that they left the place because of insufficient diet, which indicates that drought might would been very serious in the period.
Second, lecturer asserts that the Annasazi’s historical artifacts such as clay and beams do not necessarily mean that they tried to preserve their land before they left because of a drought. The lecturer doubts on the fact that they did not come back after they left the land. If they left in order to avoid a severe drought, then they would have come back to the site, once the drought was over. This contradicts the reading passage’s assertion that the condition of the original site signifies that they would have abandoned the land temporarily because of a drought.
Third, the lecturer contends that the Annasazi’s new settlements do not possess abundant water supplies. She points out that Arizona in which the Annasazi newly occupied has very limited water sources and is not appropriate for crops to be cultivated. This area is even harsher than the former area where they previously occupied. This counters the reading passage’s claim that the evidence, which shows enough water sources from the new Annasazi’s settlements, signifies that drought would have been a critical reason that the people abandoned their previous land. |