Both the lecture and the reading hold
different position, respectively, on
the issue of whether many members of animal kingdom play or not. The lecturer’s
argument is formed around many points that are in direct contrast to the material (points) in reading passage.
To begin with, the lecturer claims
that animal’s organism would be able to play when they (their) physical level is not 100 percent. Because,
play leads to
(makes them) hungry again. But animals
lasting play agin. (You are writing fractures of a sentence.
Review how to write full sentences) Many mammals acting like this. This contrasts to the writer’s
argument that animal play to expend excess energy. (The
last sentence is the ONLY sentence that makes sense grammatically)
On top of that, the lecturer argues
that play is not necessary for there live (to animals). To
be specific, animals killed or injured in (also?) play. Do not play is more safety for animals. (, while it is safer for
those animals not to play.) This counters the reading passage’s
viewpoint that instinct practice theory that play is instinct impulse and survival functions.
(Only one sentence till
here was complete sentence. Work harder in improving your grammar skill for
writing. Keep it up! J )
Lastly, the lecturer asserts that play is cannot (be a) form (of) socialization and build relationship and community well. In fact, socialization theory cause actual battle like wolves. This casts doubt on the writer’s claim that socialization theory that animal study relationship and social through play.