▶ Your Answer :
In the lecture, the lecturer contends that none of the current explanations of the mysteriousness of Angkor's fall is not plausible. This rebuffs the reading passage's assertion that those ideas explains the suddenness of Angkor's decline accurately.
To begin with, the speaker claims that it is unlikely that Angkor was affected by the Black Death. This is because the Black Death spreads by ships, but Angkor was far inland. Also, it is still controversial whether the Black Death had actually ever spread in the South Asia or not. This casts doubt on the reading passage's point that Angkor's ruin to the disease can be possible explanation for its collapse.
Second, the lecturer asserts that failed water system was actually not as disastrous as the reading passage claims. This is due to the fact that the waterway does not seems to had been crucial at that time, because it just provided little amount of water. That is, other water resources were needed, and there must had been some other ways to provide water. Therefore, the fail of water system did not impact the agriculture of Angkor. This contradicts the reading passage's claim that failed water system caused Angkor's demise.
Last, the speaker argues that the rise of maritime trade actually did not severely impact the economy of Angkor. To be specific, the city's economy was mainly based on agriculture. However, merchants of coastal cities actually did not deal with those goods. Therefore, Angkor could kept to be an important center of trade, even after coastal cities started to grow. This rebutes the reading passage's assertion that the rise of maritime trade actually had been fatal to Angkor's economy. |