▶ Your Answer : In this set of materials, both the reading and the lecture deal with the artifacts in Britain. Regarding this issue, the lecturer contradicts the writer's claim that many artifacts were broken or destroyed in the past because of three reasons.
To begin with, according to the lecturer, the writer's first idea cannot be validated. She points out that the governmental new guidline about the artifacts preserved many artifacts. To be specific, many archaeologists examined sites, where contained many artifacts, before the construction. This point refutes the writer's argument that many artifacts were damaged and destroyed because of construction projects.
In addition, the lecturer goes on to say that the second idea of the reading passage is also disputable. She explains that construction companies invested much money in archaeological projects. Therefore, the government was not related to this projects. This runs counter to the reading passage's assertion that archaeological research was not offered sufficient funds from the government to preserve the artifacts.
Finally, the lecturer claims that even the writer's last idea does not sound convincing. There were many archaeology jobs at that time. Infact, there were a substantial rise in the number of archaeology jobs in Britain. This casts doubt on the writer's claim that there were few archaeologist jobs available at that time. |