题目原文：
As early as the twelfth century A.D., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their “great houses,” massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories high. Archaeologists have been trying to determine how the buildings were used. While there is still no universally agreed upon explanation, there are three competing theories.
One theory holds that the Chaco structures were purely residential, with each housing hundreds of people. Supporters of this theory have interpreted Chaco great houses as earlier versions of the architecture seen in more recent Southwest societies. In particular, the Chaco houses appear strikingly similar to the large, well-known “apartment buildings” at Taos, New Mexico, in which many people have been living for centuries.
A second theory contends that the Chaco structures were usedto store food supplies. One of the main crops of the Chaco people was grain maize, which could be stored for long periods of time without spoiling and could serve as a long-lasting supply of food. The supplies of maize had to be stored somewhere, and the size of the great houses would make them very suitable for the purpose.
A third theory proposes that houses were used as ceremonial centers. Close to one house, called Pueblo Alto, archaeologists identified an enormous mound formed by a pile of old material. Excavations of the mound revealed deposits containing a surprisingly large number of broken pots. This finding has been interpreted as evidence that people gathered at Pueblo Alto for special ceremonies. At the ceremonies, they ate festive meals and then discarded the pots in which the meals had been prepared or served. Such ceremonies have been documented for other Native American cultures.
题目音频：
Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific theories discussed the reading passage.
学术写作：
简化大意：
教授：政府是否应该给艺术家经济支持？
Claire: 不应该
Paul: 应该
详细题目回忆：
Doctor Achebe:
We’ve been discussing government budgets and the difficult decisions governments must make regarding the use of public funds. Some services are clearly essential and must be paid for by any government. But what about public funding of the arts? Do you believe that governments should provide financial support to artists-for example, painters, sculptors, musicians, or filmmakers? Why or why not?
Claire:
I enjoy art as much as anyone does, but public funds come from taxes, and I don’t think taxpayers’ hard-earned money should be spent on impractical or inessential items and services. Artists should support themselves by selling their work to private individuals and companies. If they can’t find enough buyers, then maybe they should change careers.
Paul:
Personally, I think art actually is essential. Lots of public spaces in my hometown just wouldn’t be the same without artwork. From statues in public parks to murals painted on the walls of government buildings, my hometown really benefits from funding the artists who created these works. The public spaces are simply more enjoyable for visitors because of the artwork.
答案请付费后查阅：
