words per minute
13
Farahalanbari
00:00
Speed
The reading and the lecture are both about how agnostids may have lived. Whereas the author of the reading proposes three possible hypotheses and provides evidence to support them, the lecturer contradicts his arguments respectively.
To begin with, the author claims that agnostids may have lived as strong swimmers and active predators, and even for small agnostids, there are plenty of smaller organisms in the ancient ocean for them to hunt. The professor, in contrast, stands in firm opposition to this claim. And he states that predators usually have large eyes and well-developed vision, while agnostids have tiny eyes and poor vision, and some even are blind. Furthermore, she also rules out the possibility that agnostids may use other sensory organs instead of eyes, as there is no evidence has been obtained so far.
Secondly, according to the article, agnostids might live on the seafloor, and feed on dead organisms or bacteria. The lecturer, however, questions this argument by pointing out that agnostids live in multiple geological areas, indicating that they may move very fast. This is contrary to seafloor dwellers, which usually move very slowly and live in very small geological areas. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with this
claim by contending that.
Finally, the writer brings his argument to a close by
suggesting that agnostids could be parasites and live on fish or other larger organisms because many types of arthropods live this way. As opposed to the writer's claim, the speaker mentions that the population of parasites is often very small, so they would not kill the hosts. Again, the speaker specifically addresses this point
when he explains that, unlike parasites, agnostids lived in a large group.
As we can see, the author and the lecturer hold very different views on possible ways that agnostids may have lived.