Both the lecture and the reading passage discuss the danger of glass on birds. While the reading state that there are many solutions to prevent injuries to birds. The lecture refutes this, by saying that these solutions not effective to prevent birds fro

The article and the lecture both discuss ways to prevent birds injury caused by their collision with glass' buildings. The reading claims that it is possible to prevent this collision and provide three way do so. The lecturer, however, refutes the author's assessment. He demonstrate three reasons to cast doubt on the claims made in the reading. The first allegation of the script against which the orator argues is the possibility of using mirror glass instead of transparent glass. The lecturer refuted this point by stating that replacing transparent glass with mirrors will not prevent birds from colliding with the glass because birds would still see the reflection of trees thinking that those are real natural images. Therefore, they will redirect their path. Secondly, according to the text painting certain colorful designs on windows like strips may help birds to distinguish that their is a solid object in front of them. Though the speaker finds this idea debatable, he bolsters his opinion by stating that it is true that birds will recognize the glass by identifying the paints, but the unpainted holes inside these designs will still deceive birds. Moreover, creating smaller holes to redirect birds will cause darkness inside building's rooms Finally, the lecturer contradicts the fallacy of the passage that creating a magnetic field would cause birds to move away of the building because of the signals. The professor again disagree with the author. He contends that magnetic field is effective to divert long distance travelling birds. However, the short distance travelling birds will not recognize it because such birds use sight and day light to find there path. As a result, birds will ultimately collide with the building.