▶ 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 heritages in England. With three cogent explanations, the lecturer raises objections to the alleged problems presented in the passage.
To start with, the lectuer debunks the author's first conjecture since it is disputable. To elaborate in detail, the lecturer claims that according to the English law, companies have to pay for any damage in these sites so they are being more careful to deal with these heritages. This views is indirect opposition to the author's claim that Enland archaeological sites can be easily destroyed by demographic changes.
In addition, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the author's ideas on financial problems. The lectuer sounds convinced that the author manifesting an error about the possible results of these problems since the sites managements are responsible of not only goverment but also corporates. The goverment spends money for these sites as well as private sponsors also invest funding for these heritages. However, the author clarifies that archeological research are being danger of lack of funding.
Thirdly, the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final point on job's availability of these fields is flawed. The lecturer mentions provisions of the national heritage laws have created grants to support archaeological research. Also, many commercial firms in England have grown rapidly. However, this counters the author's theory that it's fast hard to find jobs in archaeology because of lack of job's availability and trained students.
Therefore, with these three convincing explanations the lecturer posits, the author's assumption are all rendered invalid.
|