[Howard]0529 TOFEL作文

Howard's Writing

Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific theories discussed in the reading passage.

The author of the passage gave three theories about the possible uses of the Chaco structures. First, the Chaco structures could be a large apartment in which hundreds of people live because there are similar buildings for human to live in in New Mexico. Second, the Chaco structures could be a huge room to store food supplies because grain maize, one of the main crops of Chaco people, could be stored for a long time. Third, they could be ceremonial centers because many broken pots, which could be used for festive meals, were found inside. [Actually, you don’t have to develop the reading passage into a paragraph, just paraphrase it within 3 sentence.]

However, the lecturer disagrees all the theories. The Chaco structures have few fire places for cooking, so it isn’t possible for people to live in. If they are the room for storing grain maize, there should be traces or containers of the maize, but there aren’t. Also there are buildings materials in the Chaco structures, which aren’t suitable to a ceremony centers. The lecturer thinks none of the theories is correct. [Here is the actual points where the question asks you to answer. Examples, evidence shown in the recording should be mentioned.]


The lecturer holds a disagreement toward the three theories answering the mysterious construction of Chaco. None of the theories is convincing enough. For the first theory that the Chaco structures are residential buildings, the lecturer objects to it based on the number of fire places, which is a sign of cooking and living. He mentioned that even in the largest room, there were only 10 fire places. Moreover, there weren’t enough rooms for hundreds of residents to live in. With these evidence, it’s impossible to be an inhabitant place.  Secondly, the lecture denied the assumption that it could have been a food storage because there was no trace of grain maize. If it had been for food collection, there should have been lots of containers. However, they could hardly be found in the room. Last, he said that it wouldn’t  have been a location for special ceremonies. Even though some pots have been found there, the lecturer suggests that these pots were left by the construction workers after they had a meal. These pots are also assumed to be construction materials. (To sum up,the lecturer believed that the Chaco structures were neither for habitation, nor for food storage nor for ceremonies.)





WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )


您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )


連結到 %s