▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage there is ample support for the author’s claim that the Anasazi people migrated to other place because of a severe drought and there are several proofs. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point. First, the professor from the lecture contends that discovering bones of malnutrition does not mean anything. At that time, health issues related to lack of nutrition was highly common. This was because Anasazi people used their crops as religious purposes. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that the evidence of bones from Anasazi graves proves that they were malnutrition status because of drought, causing migration. Next, the professor from the lecture insists that the condition of discarded settlements is not the evidence. It is true that there are several signs that they had a plan to go back to homeland later. However, after ended up the drought, they did not come back to the town. This means the drought was not the reason of moving to other place. This refutes the reading passage’s assertion that remained settlements show that the Anasazi planned to return to their hometown later, and it was common way to deal with dry issues. Finally, the professor from the lecture argues that the new settlements did not have adequate water. The Rio Grande River contains little moisture, not enough water. It is unlikely that they chose the places for resettling without considering the amount of water. This means that they did not leave their homeland because of harsh droughts. This counters the reading passage’s suggestion that the resettled places of the Anasazi retained plenty of water, which proves that they tried to escape from droughts. |