Summarize the points made in the lecture, be 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 it an active hunter but, the latter contradicts each of the three points. First of all, the article posits that due to the small range of it can't hunt psittacosaurs. However, the speaker contends that it can hunt the baby diameter dinosaurs as it was bigger than baby psittacosaurs. It had twice as the mass of the devour of a baby proportion or similar size dinosaur. Secondly, the text asserts that having short legs It can't run after his food. 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. The specific running 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 there is an absence of teeth marks in the bones of some fossils that were found inside the stomach of it. Nevertheless, the lecture refutes the claim by saying it used its 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: