The writer puts forward three explanations for why the Akkadian Empire did not last long. However, the professor points out that none of the explanations is convincing.
First, as for the rebellions of the conquered city-states, the professor demonstrates that the rebel would not succeed. The only chance that the city-state rebels could successfully resist the central government was they can fight inside the city. But it was impossible because the defensive walls had been destroyed by the empire. So the rebellions would be easily defeated.
Second, the professor states that the Akkadians had the ability to solve the bad weather conditions which is different from the reading. It was because the Akkadians had excellent agricultural technology to help them deal with the bad weather conditions. Their irrigation techniques allowed them to bring water from long distance and they had the knowledge to store food for a long period. As a result, they could have enough food supply even during a long period of reduced rainfall.
Finally, contrary to the opinion of the reading that the loss of old trading partners caused the empire’s downfall, the professor says that the new trading partners could make up the loss. The empire constantly searched for new trading partners from the Indian subcontinent to Mediterranean Sea. So they still could get enough resources they relied on. (223)