▶ Your Answer :
In the lecture, the professor refutes three theories on the extinction of Diprotodon presented in the reading.
First, he describes that the first theory, which explains that the extinction of Diprotodon is due to its low reproductive rate, has a hole. He uses an example of Koala bears, which produce less offsprings than Diprotodon over the course of their lives (수의 일치 -> bears). This casts a doubt on the reading passage 's claim that Diprotodon became extinct because it produced too few young (too few young이 무슨 뜻으로 사용하신 건가요? 문법적으로 이해가 힘듭니다) to sustain itself.
Second, the speaker disproves the second theory, which finds the cause of Diprotodonn's extinction from a sudden and severe shortage of food. He explains that in fact, fire set up by early humans did not (줄임말 사용을 지양해주세요) eliminate Diprotodon's primary food, but made the land fertile. In addition, he says that Diproton had alternative foods to eat when saltbush was scarce, so it is doubtful to theorize that Diprotodon went extinct (extinct -> 형용사이고 멸종되다 라는 의미로 쓸 때는 go extinct라고 씁니다) due to the lack of food.
Third, the lecturer rejects the theory that Diprotodon was killed of by predators. While the article describes Diprotodon as a peaceful herbivore, which can't move quickly or hide easily due to its enormous size, he states that only few predators would have (조동사 + 동사원형) been able to prey on Diprotodon due to its hugeness. He also argues that if Diprotodon was an easy prey for other predators, it should have died off much earlier.
For these reasons, the professor disagrees with the three theories proposed in the article. |