新人新人~~综合写作 刚开始练。。。求各位狠批狠批啊

sm_katherine

The lecture apparently disputes the points illustrated in the reading passage. According to the reading passage, even though there is still no universal opinion  about the use of the buildings of Chaco Canyon, there are three competing theories which are supported by enough evidence. However, yet none of them regard in the eye of lecture.

First of all,  the professor casts doubts on the fact that the Chaco structures were purely residential, owing to the reason that the inside of those buildings illustrate the fact that they can not hold as many as hundreds of people. For example, there are only few fireplaces, meaning that hundreds of people can not cook there for their daily life. Even the large houses can only provide fireplaces for few families. In addition, there is no adequate room for their settelment. So the lecture totally disagrees with the theory made in the reading.

What's more, the reading demonstrates that the Chaco structures were used to store food supplies. On the contrary, in the lecture, the lecturer argues that there are no convincing evidence supporting the theory. In the houses, there are big remains of big containers as well.

Finally, the passage raises the issue that the houses were used for ceremonial functions. The professor opposes to the writer's expectation. He asserts that there are also others materials lie in the Pueblo Alto, including some building materials such as sand, stones and so on, resulting in the conclusion that maybe it is just a place for those thing thrown away. As far as those ports, they may be just for some regular trash.

In conclusion, the point made in the lecture contracts with what is presented in the reading passage.