▶ Your Answer :
As far as egypt is concerned, the lecturer takes a stand that opposes the thesis of the reading and presents three counterargument. Specifically, the lecturer does not sympathize the reading passage’s view and argues that three factors in the reading do not sound convincing enough to lead to empire’s collapse.
First, the lecturer discusses the same issue of egypt, but makes a rebuttal against the reading’s first supporting idea. In the lecturer’s opinion, it was not beneficial that the provincial governors opposed the rule of the paraoh / (the first point in the reading does not sound convincing since it was not beneficial for the provincial governors to oppose the rule of the paraoh.) This viewpoint contrasts with the author’s argument that the changed manner of the regional governors toward the monarchy is a cogent evidence for the collapse of the Old Kingdom.
On the second point of egypt in the reading passage, the lecturer takes a different standpoint. According to the lecturer, historic documents are misinterpreted because only eastern regions of Old Kingdom suffered from serious drought. This argument runs contrary to the author’s claim that severe drought in the end of the third millenium BC resulted in famine.
Last but not least, in the lecture, the reading passage’s final point about egypt is regarded as unsubstantiated and groundless. In fact, the lecturer notes that the central govermental system of the empire was so strong that it did not allow long turmoils. This critical arguments contradicts the author’s claim that a power struggle of deciding Pepi’s successor provides a clear basis for the end of the empire. |