The article discusses a fascinating topic pertaining to why many animals were larger in the past and provides three reasons of support. Nonetheless, the professor explain that none of the evidence verified the factors that caused them to be enormous and opposes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading passage mentions that a great deal of animal in large size due to amount of oxygen in the early earth were much more than today. In contrary, the professor provides the information that it was impossible. He states that in the early earth, there were numerous volcanic activity that produced poisonous chemical into air, which brought about the air being less inhaleable so as for animal to survive. Clearly, a disparity exists between the article and the evidence exhibited by the professor. As a result, we can safely assume that, in the past indeed there was insufficient oxygen.
Second, the reading passage pushes forth the idea that abundant plant life provided scores of nutrients which led to bigger growth. Nevertheless, the professor explain that indeed a vast number of plant were present , but nutrients were low. According to the professor, based on info that was discovered in fossil, amount of Co2 was high so this induced nutrients to be scarce. Consequently, we can argue that indeed the claim made in the reading is unsubstantiated.
Finally, the article posits that warm climate played such an important role in this due to many animals saved their energy which kept them warm was contributed to growth. The professor refutes this point by explaining that many small animals are observed where warm climates dominates. Moreover, large animals need colder climate to release their heat through body, that is why it can not be conducive in order this process.
In summary, while both the reading and the professor provide interesting information with regard to anatomy of past animals, significant amount of evidence support that the professor presented more legitimate grounds. Therefore, the article fails to justify the claim towards stand points of the lecturer.