Integrated essay-

[Elmir050]

The reading passage describes the reasons why the people in Monte Verde couldn’t be existed 12.500 years ago, however the listening passage opposes to it as followings:

First, the author alleges that, the first settlers of America known as hunter-gatherers which were sustaining themselves with killed animals and plants. It also mentions that, excavations in the Monte Verde site couldn’t unravel any hunting tools such as spearhead or arrowheads. However, the lecturer claims that the tools actually existed and they were made from bones and were always sheltering in a peat bog. That’s why in excavations it couldn’t be founded.

Second, the written article states farmers in the site probably have damaged the side by plowing some crops on the land. By doing that, they could have damaged the archeological evidence and it could be difficult to tell for the researchers what happened exactly in that time. However, the speaker mentions that the evidences should have been digged through the deeper layer of the soil. Because the farmers plowed only upper part of the soil and they couldn’t actually touched this artifacts.

Finally, the reading passage asserts that, the substance which is used to pave roads have compromised the site and impeded the provess of carbon dating. So that archeologists dated only certain objects. However the listening passage opposes to it by saying some artifacts were immersed to chemical in order to preserve them and they couldn’t be carbon-dated. The researchers also did a lot of methods.

TOEFL listening lectures: Why does the professor discuss an experiment with dummies?

[Elmir050]

The reading passage describes the reasons why the people in Monte Verde couldn’t be existed 12.500 years ago, however the listening passage opposes to it as followings:

First, the author alleges that, the first settlers of America known as hunter-gatherers which were sustaining themselves with killed animals and plants, didn't exist there because excavations in the Monte Verde site couldn’t unravel any hunting tools such as spearhead or arrowheads. However, the lecturer claims that the tools actually existed and they were made from bones and were always sheltering in a peat bog. That’s why in excavations it couldn’t be founded.

Second, the written article states farmers in the site probably have damaged the side by plowing some crops on the land. By doing that, they could have damaged the archeological evidence and it could be difficult to tell for the researchers what happened exactly in that time. However, the speaker mentions that the evidences should have been digged through the deeper layer of the soil. Because the farmers plowed only upper part of the soil and they couldn’t actually touched this artifacts.

Finally, the reading passage asserts that, the substance which is used to pave roads have compromised the site and impeded the provess of carbon dating. So that archeologists dated only certain objects. However the listening passage opposes to it by saying some artifacts were immersed to chemical in order to preserve them and they couldn’t be carbon-dated. The researchers also did a lot of methods.
Sorry, there was a problem in one sentence

[Altunshukurlu]

there is an EDIT button near your first post ...
_________________
now i also have "words under line" ;)