tpo 29.1

The text and lecturer offer two opposing views on the accuracy of the Edmontosaurus’s migration hypothesis of. While the text lists some factors as the main reasons of this phenomenon, the professor counters these specific points and renders some clues to call into question for the information in the reading passage.

First of all, the professor refutes the edmontosaur's diet as a supporter of the migration hypothesis, which in the reading part is named as one of the causes of this incident. The lecturer states that this region experiences a worm and 24 hours sunny days in the summer and this condition prepare a huge amount of the plants. These bulks of the vegetation’s dead tissues were accessible during the cold winters too. Thus, the dinosaurs can feet on these remains instead of migrating to south zone in the sake of the herbs.

Next, although the passage uses the surmise of the living in the herd as one of the clues which lead to the conclusion of migration, the professor casts doubts the truth of this inference. As the lecturer asserts, there are extra motivations besides the migration purpose which is governed the animals to live in a mass. One of the motivations presented in the listening part is the extra-protection from the predators. As the woman mentions there is a kind of herbivore elk which live in the herd but they do not migrate.

Finally, the lecturer argues this dinosaur’s physical ability to relocation fast. Meanwhile, the passage presumes this ability as a clue which paves the path to a convenient and fast transportation. Based upon the professor’s evidence the adult edmonosaurs had these capabilities and the young dinosaurs did not have these advantages. Hence, if both of the generations move in herb the immature one will slow done the whole dinosaurs’ speeds. Besides, as they could not live lonely, the adult dinosaurs could not leave them solely in the north region.