▶ Your Answer :
In
the reading passage, there is ample support of the author’s claim that there
are three explanation that the forts made up for vitrified stones. However, the
professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s
point.
First, the
professor contends that it is unlikely that the signal fire account for the
vitrification. This is because signal fire placed only few areas, and it did
not changed. Moreover, it is impossible that the heat made by the signal fire
make entire wall to be vitrified. This cast doubt on the reading passage’s claim
that the rocks would have been melted by recurrent heat from signal fire, which
caused vitrified stones.
Next, the
professor insists that the lighten is also problematic. The construction was so
large that they would have needed several lightening, which does not make sense.
Plus, the cause of cracks is not the lightning but wear and tear. This counters
the reading passage’s assertion that the It is likely for the heat generated by
one lightning to transform the rocks into glass.
Finally, the
professor argues that it is highly unlikely that it is was built by volcanic
rocks. There is no evidence to occur volcanic activities nearby this place.
Moreover the people usually used local material for construction because they
was not able to carry heavy material. This refutes the reading’s passage that
lava from volcanic eruptions is the main reason to melt and fuse together. This
material was used to build the forts.
|