The main idea of the reading and lecture is both about the migrations of dinosaurs. The author of the reading feels that dinosaurs migrated from north to south and gives three reason for support that. The lecturer, on the other hand, utterly challenges the claims made by the author. He is of opinion that the hypothesis in not convincing and present reason to that claims.
To begin with, the author argues that we can conclude from their diet that dinosaurs migrated to south from North Slope. Because they eat some special kind of plant that grow only in temperate zones. This specific argument is challenged by the lecture. He claims that they didn't have to migrate for finding food. Because the North Slope climate was warmer than today. Even there was sun in the sly for 24 hour in peak of summer, so condition for growing plants was suitable. Also in winter, in harsh cold climate, they could eat dead plant due to they were full of nutrients.
Secondly, the writer suggest that dinosaurs were living in herd and alongside herd, they also were migrating. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that living in herd, didn't mean they were migrating. Also he mention that, some animals live in herds for being safe from predators. For example, elk live in among herds and don’t migrate with the herd, He is here just for surviving from predators.
Finally, the author states that to make such a journey, dinosaurs had to migrate very long distant. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that dinosaurs can migrate this distant, but the juveniles are not capable to do that. They are so slow, and they reduce the herd's speed, so adult dinosaurs can't live the juveniles behind themselves. as a result, this hypothesis isn't true.
The main
idea
of the reading and lecture is both about the migrations of dinosaurs. The
author
of the reading feels that dinosaurs migrated from north to south and gives three reason for support that.
The
lecturer,
on the other hand
,
utterly
challenges the claims made by the
author
. He is of opinion that the hypothesis in not convincing and present reason to that claims.
To
begin
with, the
author
argues that we can conclude from their diet that dinosaurs migrated to south from North Slope.
Because
they eat
some
special kind of plant that grow
only
in temperate zones. This specific argument
is challenged
by the lecture. He claims that they didn't
have to
migrate
for finding food.
Because
the North Slope climate was warmer than
today
. Even there was sun in the sly for 24
hour
in peak of summer,
so
condition for growing plants was suitable.
Also
in winter, in harsh
cold
climate, they could eat dead plant due to they were full of nutrients.
Secondly
, the writer suggest that dinosaurs were living in
herd
and alongside
herd
, they
also
were migrating. The lecturer,
however
, rebuts this by mentioning that living in
herd
, didn't mean they were migrating.
Also
he
mention
that,
some
animals
live
in
herds
for being safe from predators.
For example
, elk
live
in among
herds
and don’t
migrate
with the
herd
, He is here
just
for surviving from predators.
Finally
, the
author
states that to
make
such a journey, dinosaurs had to
migrate
very
long distant.
In contrast
, the lecturer's position is that dinosaurs can
migrate
this distant,
but
the juveniles are not capable to do that. They are
so
slow, and they
reduce
the herd's speed,
so
adult dinosaurs can't
live
the juveniles behind themselves.
as
a result, this hypothesis isn't true.