In this set of materials the article posits that archaeology science in the Britain is dealing with serious problems, and provides three reasons of support. However, the lecturer raises questions on the ideas and presents some evidence to refute them all.
First, the author of the reading passage states that construction of the new projects damaged the valuable artifacts and many of them were destroyed. On the contrast, the professor refute this point by saying that sites for these construction should be examined by the archaeologists at fist. According to the professor, the next step of the construction is planning for the buildings. So, the first reason of the article about destroying the artifacts is wrong.
The next explanation which is uttered in the article is that poor financial support from the government resulted to abandoning the researches by archaeologists. In contrast, the lecturer explains that construction companies are paying the archaeologists, not the government. She mentions that these companies provide the new financial aid for archaeologists, thus they can study many range of sites, even more than past.
The last reason which is presented in the reading passage is that finding a job in the archaeology field is a very difficult work to do due to not sufficient positions. Conversely, the speaker casts doubt on this point and she asserts that currently there are many paid works for archaeologists. For instance, before the construction the site should be examined and this work can be done just by an archaeologist. Also, archaeologists can do researches and present some articles about their works, besides the processing the data for constructions.
In this set of materials the
article
posits that archaeology science in the Britain is dealing with serious problems, and provides three reasons of support.
However
, the lecturer raises questions on the
ideas
and presents
some
evidence to refute them all.
First
, the author of the reading passage states that
construction
of the new projects damaged the valuable artifacts and
many
of them were
destroyed
. On the contrast, the professor refute this point by saying that sites for these
construction
should
be examined
by the
archaeologists
at fist. According to the professor, the
next
step of the
construction
is planning for the buildings.
So
, the
first
reason of the
article
about destroying the artifacts is
wrong
.
The
next
explanation which
is uttered
in the
article
is that poor financial support from the
government
resulted to abandoning the researches by
archaeologists
.
In contrast
, the lecturer
explains
that
construction
companies
are paying the
archaeologists
, not the
government
. She mentions that these
companies
provide the new financial aid for
archaeologists
,
thus
they can study
many range
of sites, even more than past.
The last reason which
is presented
in the reading passage is that finding a job in the archaeology field is a
very
difficult
work
to do due to not sufficient positions.
Conversely
, the speaker casts doubt on this
point and
she asserts that
currently
there are
many
paid works for
archaeologists
.
For instance
,
before
the
construction
the site should
be examined
and this
work
can
be done
just
by an
archaeologist
.
Also
,
archaeologists
can do researches and present
some
articles
about their works,
besides
the processing the data for
constructions
.