The reading passage contends that the purpose of the Nazca lines can be fully explained by three theories. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument.
First, the speaker argues that there is no evidence that the lines don't mean the celestial purpose. the reason is that there is a low correlation of between the lines and star constellations. In other words, this rate is less than coincidence occurred. Therefore, it is difficult to say that there are links between the lines and certain celestial occurrences. This this casts doubt on the reading passage that there is evidence for the relationship between the lines and celestial occurrences.
Second, according to the lecture, it is wrong to say that it is a form of Nazca art. This this is because the size of the lines is really huge, which means that they are viewed only from the sky. But, the human can fly from in modern society. Also, the Nazca people were not able to fly to do any reason such as drawing the lines at that time. This refutes the reading passage's assertion that the Nazca lines epitomized a Nazca form of art.
The final point made by the lecturer is that it is untrue that the lines function as the navigation system. This is supported by the fact that many forms of lines are too impractical to navigate the direction. For example, the monkey's tail is the shape of the circular, which means that this form cannot give the direction. There there are only having some spiritual reasons. This counters the reading passage that the lines used as the navigation function.
수고하셨습니다 :)