▶ Your Answer :
In the reading
passage, there is ample support to the author’s claim that there are some
causes that made stones constituting the forts glass- like material. However,
the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s
claim.
First, the
professor argues that the number of places where the fires on the wall were lit
might have been one or two, which means that only a few signal fires could melt
the small area of the fortress. This is discrepant with the fact that the entire
surfaces of the forts became vitrified. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s
assertion that heat from fires lit in order to communicate with other communities
cause the upper parts of the wall to be changed into glass-like substances.
Next, the professor insists that there is a
chance that lightning could have occurred in same parts of the wall.
Furthermore, the remains are old enough to be damaged naturally instead of
being cracked by lightening. This counters the reading passage’s suggestion
that the rocks were melted by extreme heat produce from lightning. Also, flaws
on the wall can be evidence to support the fact that a strike of the lightning
made the forts destroyed.
Finally, the professor
contends that evidences of the volcanic eruption near the forts are not exist.
In the period when the remains were built, load system was not developed, which
made it difficult to transport grave material for great distances. So, the
ancient residents of Scotland only used local materials. This refuted the
reading passage’s claim that vitrified rocks that people lived in Scotland made
use of in order to establish that structure were caused by lava from volcano
which let the rocks melt and fuse together.
|