In the lecture, the speaker contends that the reading's points are not plausible. This contradicts the reading's assertion that Anasazi civilization left their homeland due to a severe drought.
First, the lecturer claims that bones which show clear signs of malnutrition are not anything. Malnutrition was common in that time. Particularly, 4-50 percents of kids suffered malnutrition even on the harvest periods. This challenges the reading's point that lack of food forced them to abandon their homeland.
Second, the lecturer points out that moving the Anasazi didn't come back to first place. The Anasazi motivated to move by drought didn't return after a drought which is a temporary climate feature was over. This counters the reading's point that the Anasazi made their signal to reoccupy.
Finally, the lecturer argues that the new settlement for Anasazi was not adequate water supply. For example, some of Anasazi resettled their land near Arizona, but that new place had worsen water supply. This opposes the reading's point that the Anasazi moved their area to find the better water supply.