▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer makes a strong assertion that refutes the thesis of the reading passage, presenting three grounds for the refutation. Specifically, the lecturer, so to speak, does not concur with the reading passage that Marco Polo never visited China. First, the lecturer elaborates on the topic of Marco Polo's visiting of China and opposes the first supporting idea of the reading passage. According to the lecturer, there are historical records convincing that Polo had visited China. This opinion is in stark contrast to the author's argument that it cannot be found in any historical records that Polo had been in China. Additionally, the lecturer views Marco Polo's traveling in China from a different angle and thus, makes another refutation against the second idea of the reading passage. As far as the lecturer's argument is concerned, Polo didn't write about the tea culture which represents the China because it was not prevalent on that time of Marco Polo's traveling. This argument goes against the author's claim that Polo didn't record all the key information of China such as tea culture or highlighted ceremonies. Thirdly, in the lecture, the final point of the reading passage is overlooked as empty rhetoric. As a matter of fact, the lecturer asserts that it could make sense that Polo used Persian name in China because Persia was the trade routine to China and thus, many of people that day used Persian name. This counterargument is in complete opposition to the author's claim that it is weird that Polo used his name with Persian language. |