TPO16

The reading passage and the lecturer are both about the science of archaeology. Within this context, the author of the reading passage points out that archaeologists, who study and discover old artifacts, have encountered some problems, and provides three of them. The professor, in contrast, challenges the author's speeches and claims that Britain's new rules improved the world of archaeology even more than before and describes three reasons to support.

To begin with, the article avers that many worthy artifacts were lost because of the population increase and construction of new buildings. Moreover, many valuable artifacts have been destroyed in this way. The spokeswoman, on the other hand, contends that before launching a construction project, the intended sites were examined by archaeologists. And, if they find that a site is archaeologically valuable, they would never start a project. Therefore, the ancient artifacts were not influenced by construction projects.

Second, the writer declares that many archaeologists claim that governments did not invest enough in their projects, and many projects were left out of government support. The audio, on the contrary, contends that instead of the government, construction companies are responsible for devoting money and supporting such projects. Furthermore, construction companies pay for initial examinations and evaluation and allow researchers to investigate. So, the government is not blamed, and also, construction companies did their job.

Third, the essay claims that many people who have been educated in archaeology did not have enough job opportunities, or were not paid enough, so they left their fields. The narrator, however, states that investigation of a site, or evaluation of artifacts, is a huge process and contains many parts such as finalizing the value of an artifact, determining its scientific value, preserving it, and many other parts, that all are good job opportunities for archaeologists. So, the idea of job positions does not seem reasonable.