▶ Your Answer :
Both the lecture and the reading hold different positions, respectively, on the issue of why Teotihuacan collapsed. The lecture’s argument is formed around many points that are in direct contrast to the material in the reading passage.
First, the reading passage mentions that invasion of foreign country made city to devastated. However, the lecture refutes this by arguing that invaded area was just small fraction of the civilization. And the damage of invasion was not enough to destroy the city to collapse. Also, the items which were necessary for life had founded after the fire incident. This leads to the following that people lived in the city after the fire happening.
In addition, the reading passage points out that people who had lived in the city starved and dead because of extreme drought. On the other hand, the speaker in the lecture rebuts this by claiming that there was irrigation system in the city. This made possible to produce enough crops. It is not make sense that this complex city didn’t have the irrigation system.
Finally, according to the reading passage, cutting too many trees led deforestation quickly, erosion of soil and lack of mineral. In contrast, the lecture counters the reading’s point by saying that the citizens could get important products such as woods by trading the items with another city. Although the deforestation created challenge to people, it was not enough to devastate the city by itself.
In conclusion, the reading passage presents three aspects with regard to the theories of cause which made the great city to collapse. However, the lecture’s argument makes it clear that none of these characteristics justify the reading passage’s claim. |