▶ Your Answer : In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author’s claim that forts were built with vitrified stones. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as rebuttal to the author’s point. First, the professor contends that signal fire is not plausible. Since only one or two places had been used to light signal fire and never changed, therefore few sites should have been vitrified. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that signal fires has caused vitrify of top parts of the walls. Also, the professor insists that lightning cannot be persuasive. Numerous lightning would have been required to fully explain vitrified stones. However, it is impossible to have lightning over the same area and cause vitrify. What’s more crack and chunks of the rocks is accountable with natural phenomenon. This counters the reading passage’s assertion that excessive heat and numerous strikes had caused vitrified rocks. Finally, the professor argues that using volcanic rock is highly doubtful. As there have been little records that demonstrate any volcanic activity and people in the past were not able to carry building materials. This refutes the reading passage’s suggestion that volcanic activity had been occurred in prior to build forts. In conclusion, the professor effectively contradicts the points made in the reading passage by providing logical reasoning. |