▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer argues that although there are some theories about why Teotihuacan declined, they are not convincing. This is in opposition to the reading passage's assertion that these theories are quite trustworthy.
First of all, the lecturer insists that the city burned only a small fraction. In fact, the damage was not so devastating. It is supported by local arts recently found in the city, which was made after the fire. This casts doubt on the reading passage's argument that the city collapsed after the fire, caused by foreign invasion.
On top of that, the lecturer contends that the drought was regular while the civilization prospered. Citizens had the ability to cope with such a drought by buildnig canals. This contradicts the reading passage's claim that severe drought led the Teotihuacan people to death.
Finally, the lecturer asserts that the deforestation occurred not rapidly, but slowly over 100 years. People were able to overcome this problem by trading with other countries. They sold their wood and bought supplies they need. This refutes the reading passage's contention that the rapid deforestation was the main cause of the collapse.
그런데 끝나고 나서 검토하는데 보니까 마지막 문단에서 나무를 판게 아니라 나무를 얻기 위해서 무역을
한 거 였군요. 듣기 내용을 잘못 이해한 것 같습니다. 어쨌든 글은 잘못 이해한 대로 올리겠습니다. |