Both sources discuss the possible migration of edmontosaurs as a strategy to cope with the North Slope’s harsh climate during winters. The following paragraphs describe how the lecture challenges the points made in the reading and finds its reasons for supporting the migration theory logically flawed.
First, according to the reading, given edmontosaurus’ plant-eating habit, they must have left their habitats for greener pastures to find adequate sources of plants which were hard to find in North Slope in wintertime. The lecture, on the other hand, finds this migration unnecessary, stating that the favorable conditions during summers such as constant Sunshine and broad daylight were conducive to the growth of numerous plants and vegetables. The remains of the dead plants during winters were enough to supply edmontosaurus’ need for vegetation.
Second, the author states that the excavated remains of many edmontosaurus in the same place serve as evidence to prove these gigantic animals tended to live in herds, subscribing to the migration theory. The professor, however, does not associate this lifestyle—living in herds—with migrating because this lifestyle could have been adopted for other reasons such as guarding against predation. She further mentions Roosevelt elk as a species in the habit of living in herds without tending to migrate, an example to highlight that living collectively does not necessarily lead to migration.
Finally, the reading passage asserts that edmontosaurus could have traveled long destinations using their exceptional speed and locomotive power. According to the reading, it is a reason to conclude edmontosaurus were in the habit of migrating. The lecture opposes this conclusion, saying that juvenile edmontosaurus were not capable of traveling long distances. Given that adult edmontosaurus could not have left immature edmontosaurus behind, they did not tend to migrate.
Both sources discuss the possible
migration
of
edmontosaurs
as a strategy to cope with the North Slope’s harsh climate during winters. The following paragraphs
describe
how the lecture challenges the points made in the
reading
and
finds
its reasons for supporting the
migration
theory
logically
flawed.
First
, according to the
reading
,
given
edmontosaurus
’ plant-eating habit, they
must
have
left
their habitats for greener pastures to
find
adequate sources of plants which were
hard
to
find
in North Slope in wintertime. The lecture,
on the other hand
,
finds
this
migration
unnecessary, stating that the favorable conditions during summers such as constant Sunshine and broad daylight were conducive to the growth of numerous plants and vegetables. The remains of the dead plants during winters were
enough
to supply
edmontosaurus
’ need for vegetation.
Second, the author states that the excavated remains of
many edmontosaurus
in the same place serve as evidence to prove these gigantic animals tended to
live
in herds, subscribing to the
migration
theory. The professor,
however
, does not associate this lifestyle—living in herds—with migrating
because
this lifestyle could have
been adopted
for other reasons such as guarding against predation. She
further
mentions Roosevelt elk as a species in the habit of living in herds without tending to migrate, an example to highlight that living
collectively
does not
necessarily
lead to migration.
Finally
, the
reading
passage asserts that
edmontosaurus
could have traveled long destinations using their exceptional speed and locomotive power. According to the
reading
, it is a reason
to conclude
edmontosaurus
were in the habit of migrating. The lecture opposes this conclusion, saying that juvenile
edmontosaurus
were not capable of traveling long distances.
Given
that adult
edmontosaurus
could not have
left
immature
edmontosaurus
behind, they did not tend to migrate.