▶ Your Answer :
The
author of the passage and the speaker from the lecture reveal incompatible
views over the issue of the primary function of Great Zimbabwe. Specifically,
the lecturer presents three cogent explanations to invalidate the author’s
arguments on the key roles of Great Zimbabwe.
To
start with, the lecturer debunks the author’s first theory that Great Zimbabwe
was not serve as a defensive fortress. To elaborate in detail, the lecturer
claims that the water sources were lack in Great Zimbabwe. Moreover, there are
no any archer towers and defensive towers. This view is in direct opposition to
the author’s claim that Great Zimbabwe was built as protecting the citizens
from the invasions of other regions.
In
addition, the lecturer also brings the validity of the author’s second idea
into question. The lecturer sounds convinced that the author clearly is making
an error about the actual definition of Zimbabwe, which it means houses of
stones, not venerated houses. Plus, the size of Great Zimbabwe was so big that
it could also contain not only the royal family, but also the many people. In
the passage, however, the author clarifies that Great Zimbabwe was built for
the house of the royal people.
Thirdly,
the lecturer further expounds that the author’s final idea on Great Zimbabwe
was not a place of religious center. To corroborate this opinion, the lecturer
mentions that the cave was use for kings to carry his voice. This notion is
inconsistent with the author’s theory that the cave nearby from Great Zimbabwe
might have been used by a religious center.
|