...21'59/243

Both the author in the reading passage and the lecturer on the lecture talk about the migration hypothesis of the Edmontosaurs. Yet their viewpoints contrast with each other. While the author mention three arguments, including the diet of the dinosaur, the habit of live in herd and the ability for migrating long distance, to support the migration hypothesis, the lecturer thinks otherwise, contending that those explanation are completely not convincing.

First of all, while the writer mentions that since the edmontosaur fed exclusively on plants, they needed to migrate to the south for food when the winter came, the speaker presents opposing discourse to such a belief, reasoning that during summer, the weather were warmer and there were 24 hours day light on the North Pole, therefore, it would produce a great amount of plants. After the plants died, leaving plenty of the nutrients. The speaker argues that the dinosaurs could survive with those beneficial ingredient in dead organism.

Secondly, as opposed to the conviction presented in the reading passage, the speaker states that living in herd contributes no meanings because it may be just serve as an extra protection against the predators.

Thirdly, presented by the speaker to diminish the authenticity in the reading passage is the argument that the young dinosaurs are not able to migrate for such a long distance and they would definitely slow down the speed. Consequently, the all groups of dinosaurs would stay at the North Pole.  

arrow
arrow
    全站熱搜

    tina 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()