TPO 29

The reading passage states that one hundred million years ago, because of the harsh winter in the North Slope, the edmontosaurs would migrate to the southern places for three plausible reasons. However, the professor in the listening seriously questions the statement of the reading, and she says the article is not convincing. Therefore, she has proposed three refutations to the reading article.

First, the reading passage says that due to the diet of the edmontosaurs is not available in the North Slope, they would have to migrate into the southern places. Nevertheless, the lecturer argues that they would not have to go south because there was once a warmer place in the North Slope one hundred millions ago. To be more specific, she points out that because there is north enough, the sunshine would be twenty-four hours in the summer. Furthermore, the plants could grow there, and in the winter the dead plants could also be the source of nutrients for the edmontosaurs. Thus, the statement of the reading is negated.

Second, the reading article claims that the skeletons of the edmontosaurs show that they once lived in herds, and proposes that they would migrate to the other place, with the examples of caribou and buffalo. Nonetheless, the teacher in the listening disagrees with the deduction by indicating that animals that live in herd are not necessary mean that they would migrate. Also, the scholar in the lecture gives an example of another animal which would not migrate, even if this kind of animals would live in herds.

Lastly, the reading essay has suggested that because the edmontosaurs were capable of moving for a long distance and able to move really fast, up to forty-five kilometers per hour, they would migrate. On the contrary, the speaker in the listening has objected this explanation. In fact, she demonstrates that because the juvenile edmontosaurs cannot move that fast, the edmontosaur herd would still have to wait for the young edmontosaurs. As a result, they would have to stay in the North Slope and would not migrate.

In sum, although the reading passage has proposed seemingly convincing arguments at the first sight; however, the professor in the listening strongly refutes all of the three statements of the article, and has provided complete demonstrations.