▶ Your Answer :
Both the lecturer and the writer discuss
how the Moai statues were moved, because the statues were vigorous and heavy.
The writer claims that the statues could be shifted by being pulled, walked, or
rolled. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the writer's assertion.
First of all, the lecturer says that 'being
pulled by workers' for moving the Moai statues are non-sense. It is because
there were not enough number of man who lived in eastern area and could help
this work lived. This refutes the reading passage's claim: the Moai statues
around on Eastern Island were being pulled for transport.
In second, the lecturer argues that 'the
statues walking' is actually could not be realized due to no damages underneath
the statues. Because of a back-and-forth momentum, the statues should have been
worn. This counters the reading passage's idea that the Moai statues were
transited by using rope: a back-and-forth momentum.
Finally, the lecturer insists that the Moai
statues were rolled to their positions by workers. This is similar to the
theory of 'pulling', just different what instrument was used. Thus, the Moai
statue's bottom side must be damaged, but there aren't. This goes against the
reading passage's argument that the Moai statues were moved by using rollers. |