▶ Your Answer : The reading passage states that Anasazi mysteriously disappeared due to a drought looking for other homelands according a few evidences, however, the leturer refutes these points by providing several counterexamples. To begin with, the writer asserts that the malnutrition caused the Anasazi to leave. Bones from Anasazi graves indicate that it is like for people in that period to have abandoned their places to consume more food. When experts examined the remains from a number of sites, they discovered evidence of inadequate diet, such as vitamin deficiencies and stunted growth in children. Conversely, the lecture contradicts this idea by stating that malnutrition was common. Many children often experienced malnutrition as they had to devote all the crops to the lord even during the harvest period. Furthermore, the author contends that the condition of the abandoned settlements is the evidence of Anasazi's leave. Archaeological excavations have revealed that the Anasazi sealed up the granaries with clay and blocked off the town entrances with wooden beams. In contrast, the speaker belies this claim by stating that if Anasazi really tried to leave their land for avoiding drought spell. However, they did not come back even though the drought was over. Moreover, the passage claims that their leave is connected to water supplies. Researchers discovered new settlements in regions with dependable streams. This demonstrates that Anasazi abandoned their place for sufficient water supply. On the contrary, the lecturer rebuts this point by stating that there was less water inside the land which refers to their new settlements. They moved to the land does not contain any moisture due to the water supplies. It is not fit. |