astre1987

<第一次寫>

   In the reading paragraph, it suggested that the Anasazi was vanished due to three reasons. However, in the listening paragraph the professor argued that these three points are incorrect.

     First of all, the reading paragraph mention the Anasazi abondoned their village because of global warming. Since the weather changed, the Anasazi was force to migration. However, the professor provided a clud that there was trees and plants survive for a long time during the time. Thus what the reading part said is incorrect.

     Secondly, the reading part suggested the fact that Anasazi build irrigation system to store water is due to global warming. Global warming made them had not enough water resourses to use for dairy usage. On the contrast, the speaking person suggested they may survive since they had built the water-save system.

     Finally, the professor thought the true reason why the Anasazi disappeared may not due to the shortage of resourses. Other than the overgrown of population, it could be some other reasons such as attacked by other species or decease.

<套用模版+看範例訂正>

The professor and the reading passage both discuss the disappearance of the Anasazi. However, the lecture discords with the idea in the reading passage about why the Anasazi left there village. He offers several reasons to oppose the argument of the article.

     First of all, although in the article it claim that the drought made the Anasazi abandon their village, the professor says that the drought didn't destroy the Anasazi. He gives the record that there is trees survive during that period of time. If the drought did hit the Anasazi, no tree could survive. Thus, the surviving trees could prove that the drought did affect the Anasazi.

     Secondly, even thought the article states that the existence of irrigation system show the Anasazi was torture by the drought, the professor points out that this inference is incorrect. The irrigation system may show the fact of drought, but it doesn't mean the Anasazi was knockdowned by drought. Instead, it shows that the Anasazi has the ability to deal with the drought by irrigation system. Therefore, the lecture believes that the irrigation system is not the proof for the thesis.

     Thirdly, while the article indicates that the overgrown of population made the Anasazi out of resources during the summer drought, the professor mentions the latest finding that the Anasazi abandoned their village may due to some other reasons such as disease or being attacked. As a result, the lecture concludes that the drought made the Anasazi disappeared is not sufficient.

     In conclude, at first glance, the argument in this article seems to be somewhat convincing, but further discussing in the lecture shows more evidence which leads the opposite of the argument.