▶ Your Answer :
Both the lecture and the reading hold different positions, respectively, on the issue of the collapse of the Teotihuacan civilization. The lecture’s argument is formed around many points that are in direct contrast to the material in the reading passage.
To begin with, the reading passage points out that the Teotihuacan was damaged by another group and others are ignited there building. However, The the lecturer mentions that the center of the city which was burned by foreign invaders was a small fraction. Artifacts made after the fire have been found, which indicates that people lived there even after the incident fire. Thus, it is not the burning could not have been a major reason of the civilization’s collapse.
Furthermore, the lecturer asserts that drought was a regular part of life for the peoplecommon to the country, so people used canals to irrigate as an irrigation of their fields. This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that many the people were harmed by various climate changes.
Finally, the reading passage mentions that the Teotihuacan civilization was destroyed by deforestation. However, The the lecturer asserts that deforestation of tree did not have no a major effect on the city. The Teotihuacan tribe’s deforestation was brought about for 100 of years ago. Thus, They they knew how to gain from woods; the wood: by importing it from to other countries.
|