Summarise the points made in the lecture,being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage

Both the reading and the lecture discuss whether R. robusta is an active hunter or a scavenger. The former argues that there are three reasons not to call R. robusta an active hunter but, the latter contradicts each of these points. First of all, the article posits that due to the small range of R. robusta it can't hunt psittacosaurs. However, the speaker contends that R. robusta can hunt the baby diameter dinosaurs as it was bigger than baby psittacosaurs. R. robusta had twice as the mass of the prey of a baby proportion or similar size dinosaur. Secondly, the text asserts that having short legs R. robusta can't run after his prey. in contrast, the professor says that the short leg can help some animals to run faster and provide an example of the Tasmanian devil which can run 15 km/hour. This feature makes the Tasmanian devil an active hunter in present. Comparing with ancient R. robusta which is an ancient mammal that might have also been the same, it can actively hunt its prey with its short legs. Finally, the author of the passage wraps his statement by saying that there is an absence of teeth marks in the bones of some fossils that were found inside the stomach of R. robusta. nevertheless, the lecture refute this by saying R. robusta used his jaw to hold the prey and swallow its prey wholly without chewing that's why there is no teeth mark on that fossils.
Submitted by shuvo on
What to do next: