▶ Your Answer :
The writer and the lecturer talk about "great houses" in
Chaco Canyon. The writer explains that the great houses could have used for
three purposes while the lecturer raises specific counterclaims.
To
begin with, the writer argues that great houses were residential, because the
houses appear significantly similar to "apartment buildings." This is
in complete opposition to the lecturer who states that although the exterior of
the houses looks like apartment building, the interior of the house shows that
great houses were not residential. This is because if the houses were
residential, there were many fire places for cooking, but in fact, there were
only few fire places. To be specific, there were only about ten fire places,
but if the houses were residential, the fire places would be more than a
hundred.
Furthermore, the second assertion of the
reading passage, that great houses were used to store food supplies especially
maize is refuted by the lecturer. He insists that there was no trace or
containers of maize, so there was no reason for the houses to be used to store
foods.
Finally, regarding the last point about
ceremonial centers, the writer contends that a huge mound and broken pot in
great houses are the factor that the houses were used as ceremonial centers.
The lecturer, however, indicates that those materials are not the factor that
the houses were ceremonial center, because the mound in the houses was just the
trash of construction materials, and the broken pots were also regular trash. |