▶ Your Answer :
In
this given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the views of the
lecturer and the author over the issue of archaeological sites. With three
cogent explanations, the lecturer raises objections to the alleged issues
presented in the passage.
To
start with, the lectuer debunks the author’s first conjecture since it is
disputable. To elaborate in detail, the leturer claims that if the company
destroys these remains, they have to pay penalty. So most companys nowadays are
very careful to deal with these historical sites. This views is in direct
opposition to the author’s claim that England’s archaeological treasures are in
danger of being ruined by bulldozers.
In
addition, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the author’s ideas on
fudning issues. The lecturer sounds convinced that the author manifesting an
error about the possible consequnce of this problem since many private company
also support these historical treasure financially so it increases the invest
on these sites. However, the author clarifies that archeological sites will be dangerous
since the funding on these treasures are unsufficient.
Thirdly, the lecturer goes on to expound that
the author’s final point on jobs in archaeology is flawed. The lecturer
mentions increased demands for these jobs to corroborate this opinion.
Moreover, many corporates invest a lot of money on research for it conducted
students. It raises the possibility to increase the job openings in this
fields. However, this counters the author’s theory that getting jobs in
archaeology is becoming more hard since lacks of jobs and students majoring
this field.
Therefore, with these three convincing
explanations the lecturer posits, the author’s assumptions are all rendered invalid.
|