▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage states that Anasazi mysteriously
disappeared by the cause of the drought
looking for other homelands according a few evidences, however, the listening
passage refutes these points by providing several counterexamples.
To begin
with, the writer asserts that the malnutrition caused their leave. Bones from
Anasazi graves indicate people in that period might abandon their place to
consume more food. When experts examined the remains from a number of sites,
they discovered evidence of inadequate diet, such as vitamin deficiencies and
stunted growth in children. Conversely, the lecture contradicts this idea by
stating that malnutrition was common. Many children often experienced
malnutrition as they had to devote all the crops to the lord even during the
harvest period.
Furthermore,
the author contends that the condition of the abandoned settlements is the
evidence. Archaeological excavations
have revealed that the Anasazi sealed up the granaries with clay and blocked
off the town entrances with wooden beams. In contrast, the speaker belies this
claim by stating that if Anasazi really tried to leave their land for avoiding
drought spell. However, though the drought was over, they did not come back.
Moreover,
the passage claims that their leave is connected to water supplies. When
researchers searched new settlements, they were discovered in regions with
dependable streams. This demonstrates that Anasazi abandoned their place for
the sufficient water supply. On the contrary, the lecturer rebuts this point by
stating that there was less water inside the land which refers to their new
settlements. They moved to the land does not contain any moisture due to the
water supplies. It is not fit.
|