Reading and lecture discuss the importance of archaeology in the United Kingdom. On the one hand, the writer states that archaeology faced serious problems and limitations, providing three reasons of support. However, the lecturer refutes the claims made by the writer, saying that over the last decades, various rules and guidelines improved three fields of archaeology.
First, the writer asserts that many valuable artifacts were destroyed during the construction projects. In contrast, the lecturer rejects this statement, adding that before any construction begins, the archaeological sites are examined by experts to determine if these are places of interest. Moreover, they make plans with local governmental authorities to preserve or exploit the archaeological site, and these consist in building around it or excavating the artifacts. Thus, this standpoint contradicts the passage.
Second, besides the government funds and grants, archaeology receives financial support from the construction company as well. They initial analyze the field and if necessary, the companies contribute with money. So, the writer's allegation that archeology is poorly funded is not true, and once again his motif does not stand up.
Third, since the process of analyzing archaeological sites involves many stages, many experts were hired. This is a very complex process which supposes elaborating and implementing methods of preservation, making researches, processing data, writing reports and so forth. As a result, numerous archaeologists found jobs in this fields. Therefore, this final counter-argument repels the writer's final reason.
Reading and lecture discuss the importance of archaeology in the United Kingdom. On the one hand, the writer states that archaeology faced serious problems and limitations, providing three reasons of support.
However
, the lecturer refutes the claims made by the writer, saying that over the last decades, various
rules
and guidelines
improved
three fields of archaeology.
First
, the writer asserts that
many
valuable artifacts were
destroyed
during the construction projects.
In contrast
, the lecturer rejects this statement, adding that
before
any construction
begins
, the archaeological sites
are examined
by experts to determine if these are places of interest.
Moreover
, they
make
plans with local governmental authorities to preserve or exploit the archaeological site, and these consist in building around it or excavating the artifacts.
Thus
, this standpoint contradicts the passage.
Second,
besides
the
government
funds and grants, archaeology receives financial support from the construction
company
as well
. They initial analyze the field and if necessary, the
companies
contribute with money.
So
, the writer's allegation that
archeology
is
poorly
funded is not true, and once again his motif does not stand up.
Third, since the process of analyzing archaeological sites involves
many
stages,
many
experts
were hired
. This is a
very
complex process which supposes elaborating and implementing methods of preservation, making researches, processing data, writing reports and
so
forth.
As a result
, numerous archaeologists found jobs in
this
fields.
Therefore
, this final counter-argument repels the writer's final reason.