The reading claims that the English settlers' disappearance is not a mystery, anymore. Because they had relocated to the Island of Croatoa. However, the professor explains that none of the theories clearly proves the relocation. She adds that the points made in the article are weak and they can be easily dismissed. So, she refutes each of author's reasons.
First, the reading avers that the governor found the word " Croatoa" carved on a piece of wood when he returned and considered that as an evidence that they relocated to that island. The lecturer refutes this point by explaining that the sign does not make any sense. The governor had instructed the settlers to move to the interior parts of the country where they could find more food and safety. However, the Island of Croatoa was on the opposite side, close by shore. It is unlikely that the English settlers did not take their governor's advice and relocated to a less advantageous area.
Second, the article posits that the English artifacts found in the Island is a support of relocation. The professor contends that there is no way to prove that. She mentions that the ring stated by the author might have sent only to trade items. It was not uncommon for English travelers to trade their belongings to get food and necessities during harsh time of Croatoa.
Third, the author claims that the search parties that they were investigating the disappearance were not able to find any of settlers from Roanoke. But they were able to find Croatan people with European characteristics. The lecturer opposes this point by saying that the search groups did not start to look for the disappeared group untill 100 years after their disappearance. During this time English government had sent so many people to the Crotoa to settle, and their European characteristics can be because of intermarriage between other English settlers and Croatoan people, not only because of English settlers from Roanoke, 
The reading claims that the English settlers' disappearance is not a mystery, anymore.  
Because
 they had relocated to the  
Island
 of  
Croatoa
.  
However
, the professor  
explains
 that none of the theories  
clearly
 proves the relocation. She  
adds
 that the points made in the article are  
weak and
 they can be  
easily
 dismissed.  
So
, she refutes each of author's reasons. 
First
, the reading avers that the governor found the word  
"
;  
Croatoa"
; carved on a piece of wood when he returned and considered that as an evidence that they relocated to that  
island
. The lecturer refutes this point by explaining that the  
sign
 does not  
make
 any sense. The governor had instructed the  
settlers
 to  
move
 to the interior parts of the country where they could find more food and safety.  
However
, the  
Island
 of  
Croatoa
 was on the opposite side, close by shore. It is unlikely that the English  
settlers
 did not take their governor's advice and relocated to a less advantageous area.
Second, the article posits that the English artifacts found in the  
Island
 is a support of relocation. The professor contends that there is no way to prove that. She mentions that the ring stated by the author might have  
sent
  only
 to trade items. It was not uncommon for English travelers to trade their belongings to  
get
 food and necessities during harsh time of  
Croatoa
.
Third, the author claims that the search parties that they were investigating the disappearance were not able to find any of  
settlers
 from Roanoke.  
But
 they were able to find  
Croatan
  people
 with European characteristics. The lecturer opposes this point by saying that the search groups did not  
start
 to look for the disappeared group  
untill
 100 years after their disappearance. During this time English  
government
 had  
sent
  so
  many
  people
 to the  
Crotoa
 to settle, and their European characteristics can be  
because
 of intermarriage between other English  
settlers
 and  
Croatoan
  people
, not  
only
  because
 of English  
settlers
 from Roanoke,