Both of the lecturer and the writer explore the twentieth century cultural artifacts studying situation of archaeologists in the United Kingdom. The writer lists three aspects that lead to the great (negative)influence of the filed. The professor, on the contrary, states that new rules was published, which helped to change the field and improved the condition in three areas mentioned in the reading.
First, all the construction site had to be examined by archaeologists before construction, which insured that the loss of valuable artifacts described in the passage would not happen again, claims the professor. If it was an archaeology interest and of great value, constructers, government officials and archaeologists would gather together and plan for the preservation-built around the site or built after the needed excavation was accomplished-to protect the site from being damaged. Therefore, this directly disproves its counterpart in the reading material that construction projects destroyed many valuable artifacts.
Moreover, the speaker declares that all the researches would be paid by the construction company instead of the government. This is a whole new source of financial support. In this way, the found allowed a greater range of research that was impossible in the past. Accordingly, this is another place where experiences the contradicted theory.
At last, the lecturer asserts that more paid jobs for archaeologists did not exist before would be provided. They would be hired at all stages of process: examine the site, draw the protection plan, do research, process data and write the report. Therefore, the number of jobs would increase as well as the number of professional archaeologists, which could be the highest ever before. Consequently, the last point is rebutted.
In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the weaknesses in the passage and convincingly shows that the central arguments in the reading, three areas affect the progress of studying and uncovering the artifacts, are incorrect.
|