The article states that Eastern Island civilization had been destroyed and provides three main reasons of support. However, the professor explains that there are some flaws in these ideas and refutes each of the author's reasons. In the following, the statements of the lecturer will be discussed.
First, the reading claims that there was a huge deforestation due to cutting down massive forests which led to tremendous erosion and extinction of the native citizens. The professor refutes this point by saying that the natives tried to replace cut trees with grass. He states that this action hindered the process of erosion.
Second, the article posits that rats consumed almost all nutrients in that location. On the other hand, even though the professor agrees that rats are harmful for the eco-system, the natives used this animals as their food. According to the professor's statement, bones of rats, as well as chickens, were found in the place which proves this idea.
Third, the essay concedes that, a deadly battle between short-eared and long-eared people decreased their population enormously, but the professor opposes this idea by explaining that the war was one year earlier that that massive decrease in their population. Accordingly, he states that the fight of immigration of Spanish people from Peru (with about 3000 people) which led to pershiment of two-third of the population was in 1681 one year after the great war.
In conclusion, as the lecturer claims, the answer to this convoluted mistery is still vague owing to the fact that none of the abovementioned ideas are not solid proofs of the disappearance of the native population.
The article states that Eastern Island civilization had been
destroyed
and provides three main reasons of support.
However
, the
professor
explains
that there are
some
flaws in these
ideas
and refutes each of the author's reasons. In the following, the statements of the lecturer will
be discussed
.
First
, the reading claims that there was a huge deforestation due to cutting down massive forests which led to tremendous erosion and extinction of the
native
citizens. The
professor
refutes this point by saying that the
natives
tried to replace
cut
trees with grass. He states that this action hindered the process of erosion.
Second, the article posits that rats consumed almost all nutrients in that location.
On the other hand
,
even though
the
professor
agrees
that rats are harmful for the
eco-system
, the
natives
used
this
animals as their food. According to the professor's statement, bones of rats,
as well
as chickens,
were found
in the place which proves this
idea
.
Third, the essay concedes that, a deadly battle between short-eared and long-eared
people
decreased their
population
enormously
,
but
the
professor
opposes this
idea
by explaining that the war was one year earlier that that massive decrease in their
population
.
Accordingly
, he states that the fight of immigration of Spanish
people
from Peru (with about 3000
people
) which led to
pershiment
of two-third of the
population
was in 1681 one year after the great war.
In conclusion
, as the lecturer claims, the answer to this convoluted
mistery
is
still
vague owing to the fact that none of the
abovementioned
ideas
are not solid proofs of the disappearance of the
native
population
.