The reading passage claims that the construction of the massive stone statues on Easter Island played a key role in the collapse of its civilization by causing severe environmental destruction. However, the professor in the lecture disputes this claim by offering alternative explanations for the island’s decline. First, the reading suggests that the deforestation of Easter Island occurred because the islanders cut down vast numbers of trees to transport the heavy stone statues. This large-scale tree removal supposedly led to soil erosion, food shortages, and ultimately the civilization’s collapse. However, the professor challenges this idea by arguing that other factors, such as natural climate changes and rat infestations, were more responsible for the deforestation. He explains that evidence suggests rats, brought by Polynesian settlers, rapidly multiplied and consumed tree seeds, preventing new trees from growing. This, rather than statue construction, contributed to deforestation. Second, the reading argues that because of the loss of trees, the islanders were unable to build canoes for fishing, leading to a decline in their food supply and, eventually, their downfall. The professor refutes this claim by stating that the islanders adapted to changing conditions. He explains that they shifted from relying heavily on deep-sea fishing to developing innovative agricultural techniques, such as using rock gardens to grow crops. This suggests that the society was more resilient than the reading implies. Finally, the reading claims that wars broke out among different groups on the island due to competition for limited resources, leading to widespread destruction and the decline of the civilization. However, the professor argues that there is little archaeological evidence to support this theory. He points out that while some signs of conflict exist, the overall evidence suggests that Easter Island’s society gradually declined due to external pressures, such as European contact and the introduction of diseases, rather than violent internal warfare.