Writing base on Reading and Listening.

Mischel Lópes Torrico.

The article talked about an amazing archeological discovery, in which an antique mammal
who lived 150 million years ago, the Repenomamus robustus, was found. What is
surprising about that mammal is that inside its stomach another creature was found, a
psittacosaur. The article explains some researchers came up with the idea R. robustus used
to hunt its prey. Nevertheless, the author of the reading agrees with another hypothesis,
which stablishes R. robustus was a scavenger who ate unhatched dinosaur eggs. The
lecturer casts doubt about on this claim, because he thinks that R. robustus was a fast runner
who pursuit and hunted its prey. In the following lines, I will discuss about the arguments
which justify both points of view.

According to the article, a mammal as R. robustus is considered as big as a domestic cat,

but a grown psittacosaur could measure up to two meters high. On one hand, the author
asserts that the mammal would never be able to hunt any dinosaur with those
characteristics. On the other hand, the lecturer argues that hunters were twice the size of
their prey. She argues that R. robustus might have be able to hunt small preys, such as baby
dinosaurs. In that case, that mammal was big enough to chase a baby psittacosaur.

Another interesting fact in the article is the mammal’s legs. The author mentioned that the
size and position of R. robustus legs would allow the mammal scavenging better than
hunting. That is because the mammal’s legs were not below and they were to the side
instead. This argument is questioned by the lecturer because she asserts that the length of
the legs was not an obstacle to hunt. Moreover, she mentioned an example of a mammal,
Tazmanian devil, whose legs are to the side and he reaches a speed of running of 15
kilometers per hour. Due to that fact, R. robustus was able to pursuit its prey.

The last point of view in the article stablishes the dinosaur inside the mammal does not
have any kind of signal that proves he was injured by being hunted. In that way, the author
argues the dinosaur does not show marks on the bones. That fact might evidence that the
dinosaur was eaten by the mammal while he was still inside its eggshell. This argument is
questioned by the lecturer because she explains that the mammal’s teeth did not have the
function to chew. Due to that fact, the mammal would only swallow the hole prey without
chewing.

In conclusion, there lecture and the article explain the fact of a new discovery, a dinosaur
which was found inside a mammal’s stomach. The professor effectively challenges the
claims made in the article.