▶ Your Answer :
The
lecturer argues that the theory saying the Anasazi left their homeland due to
drought have serious issues. This directly contradicts the reading passage’s
claim that there are many reliable evidences that support the theory stated
above.
First,
the lecturer asserts that the discovery of bones lacking nutrition does not
mean anything. In fact, the heath issues were common to the Anasazi regardless
of how successful their crop yield was. Even when they had sufficient harvest,
children had to suffer from malnutrition, because farmers used to devote crops
to their religious leaders. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that
the bones of the Anasazi are the signs of malnutrition. The author argues that
insufficient rainfall resulted in the lack of crop, which eventually made the
Anasazi experience the shortage of nutrients.
Second,
the lecturer maintains that the Anasazi could not have planned to come back to
their homeland. The reason is that they did not return after the drought was over.
The researches show that dry period ended soon and the climate became normal,
but the Anasazi did not reoccupy the area. This refutes the reading passage’s
claim that the condition of the settlements demonstrates that their reason for
leaving was a drought. The author suggests some archaeological evidences
showing the Anasazi tried to preserve their region and to resettle.
Finally,
the lecturer contends that the Anasazi did not resettled in areas where water
supply was stable. If they had left because of a drought, they should have
found a place where they do not have to worry about water after then. However,
in fact, they chose even harsher conditions where water was not sufficient and
agriculture cannot be successful. The rebuts the reading passage’s claim that
the Anasazi’s resettlement was made in regions where people can easily get
water. It says that their new settlement is a clear counterevidence that prove
that they were escaping from the arid conditions.
|