Your Answer ▼ Both the reading passage and lecture discuss about the origin of vitrification of forts. To begin with, the lecturer suggests that the signal fires cannot be the reason for vitrification. Specifically explaining, the signal fires were placed only few places, so it can’t vitrify entire walls. This doubts the reading passage’s opinion that the signal fires’ constant heat let the rock to melt. On top of that, the speaker of the lecture insists the explanation of lightning also has problem. This contains that it is hard to be lightened in the same place for several times, but the vitrification occurred largely more than a hundred meter. Also, as the fort was old and poor enough to be easily cracked, the claim of reading passage does not make sense. Lastly, the lecturer points out that there are less chance to use the stones exposed to lava. This claim is supported by the history that there is no reported volcano over the region. Moreover, the walls were constructed using only the materials that were found near the location, therefore it has less chance that the constructures moved the stones from far away to build the wall. This reverses the idea of the reading passage’s assertion that the vitrification was originated by the lava. To conclude, the lecture opposes the reading passage’s suggestion about the origin of vitrification with three reasons stated above. |