▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer asserts that the reading’s claim is not persuasive. This casts doubt on the reading’s point that several ideas are plausible to explain reasons for Angkor’s demise.
First, the lecturer argues that the Black Death didn’t result in Angkor’s ruin. Since Angkor was not located nearby coastal regions where the plague was spread out by ships, it is unlikely that people who lived in Angkor suffered from the illness. Also, the occurrence of the Black Death is based on speculation. This rebuffs the reading’s claim that the Black Death is a reason for the decline in the city’s population. The disease is known to spread quickly and kill people, and that’s why the city's inhabitants reduced dramatically.
Second, the speaker contends that the problems of its water system were not disastrous. It can’t be crucial evidence because people could gain water from other resources.
This challenges the reading’s claim that several fallacies in the water system decreased water levels and the amount of water needed for crops. Consequently, it led to insufficient food harvested to live on in the society.
Finally, the lecturer claims that the rise of maritime trade didn’t have a severe impact on Angkor’s power. Since its economy was based on agriculture, the negative effect was not significant enough to weaken its power. This opposes the reading’s explanation that the city started to decline while other areas near coastal lines flourished by increasing Chinese maritime trade. Since the city heavily relied on trade, it was vulnerable to this shift of economic power. |