▶ Your Answer :
In this set of materials, the lecture and
the reading passage deal with several culprits of Egyptian Old Kingdom
collapse. The lecture claims that three existing theories are not implausible.
This contradicts the writer's claim that they explain why the Old Kingdom had
nothing but to collapse.
First of all, the lecture asserts that
provincial governors must have followed the pharaoh because they had privilege.
According to the professor, they got additional rewards by showing loyalty to
the pharaoh. Also, his strong army could have prevented their revolt. This
challenges the writer's viewpoint that their revolt resulted in weakening the
monarchy.
Secondly, the lecture insists that
historical documents, which are believed to record the rainfall, were
interpreted by mistake. To be specific, they indicate that only the Eastern part of
Egypt had serious droughts problem, which cannot lead to the whole country's
end. This refutes the writer's argument that the lack of water and crops led to
the famine.
Finally, the lecture claims that the power
struggle among the last pharaoh's sons did not lead to the collapse of the Old
kingdom because it was commonplace in the Egyptian history. In addition, the
politics was well-organized by the last pharaoh, which couldn't be vacillated
by the throne competition. This casts doubt on the writer's claim that it
eventually led to the end of the Old Kingdom. |