The second attempt with more details.

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,