Both the reading and the lecture talk about declining in the number of frog species around the world. The article provides three possible solutions to get rid of such a huge decreasing in frogs population, however all of them were unpractical in the professor's eyes. Accordingly, she denies all of them with some explanation.
First and foremost, according to the writer of the excerpt, pesticides used by farmers in order to kill threaten insects for their crops play an important role in the declining of frogs' number. Considering this outcome of pesticides, they must become illegal to use in the neighborhood of frog habitats. Nevertheless, the professor in the lecture sees such a solution as an uneconomic and unfair one. She refers to harms arose from prohibition of pesticides for farmers. Farmers with such a farmland will obtain excess limitation in comparison to the rest of them, so they will have some disadvantages. They will not be able to compete with their counterparts.
Secondly, the writer of the article claims that a fungus is one of the major reasons to cause the very decrease. Scientists have to treat frogs from this infection. Nonetheless, the professor in the lecture rejects such a notion by mentioning to problems of it. Treatment must be done in a large scale, since not only do all frogs have to catch to treat directly, but also such a treatment can not be beneficial for the next generations; in fact, every new young frog must treat in the same way. In this regard, the aforementioned solution is complicated and expensive.
The author of the reading lasting insists that protecting the natural habitats of frogs, wetland and water habitats, result in preventing frogs population declining. However, the professor in the lecture refutes this solution too by saying that human activities do not a significant effect on habitats of frogs. She maintains that global warming is the root of threatening frogs habitats. In her viewpoint, if wetlands and water habitats were been not allowed to excessive use and development, it would not change anything about frogs habitats because global warming impact is unlikely to stop.
Both the reading and the
lecture
talk about declining in the number of
frog
species around the world. The article provides three possible
solutions
to
get
rid of such a huge decreasing in
frogs
population,
however
all of them were unpractical in the professor's eyes.
Accordingly
, she denies all of them with
some
explanation.
First
and foremost, according to the writer of the excerpt, pesticides
used
by farmers in order to kill threaten insects for their crops play an
important
role in the declining of frogs' number. Considering this outcome of pesticides, they
must
become illegal to
use
in the neighborhood of
frog
habitats.
Nevertheless
, the professor in the
lecture
sees
such a
solution
as an uneconomic and unfair one. She refers to harms arose from prohibition of pesticides for farmers. Farmers with such a farmland will obtain excess limitation
in comparison
to the rest of them,
so
they will have
some
disadvantages. They will not be able to compete with their counterparts.
Secondly
, the writer of the article claims that a fungus is one of the major reasons to cause the
very
decrease. Scientists
have to
treat
frogs
from this infection. Nonetheless, the professor in the
lecture
rejects such a notion by mentioning to problems of it. Treatment
must
be done
in a large scale, since not
only
do all
frogs
have to
catch to treat
directly
,
but
also
such a treatment can not be beneficial for the
next
generations; in fact, every new young
frog
must
treat
in the same way
. In this regard, the aforementioned
solution
is complicated
and expensive.
The author of the reading lasting insists that protecting the natural habitats of
frogs
, wetland and water habitats, result in preventing
frogs
population declining.
However
, the professor in the
lecture
refutes this
solution
too by saying that human activities do not a significant effect on habitats of
frogs
. She maintains that global warming is the root of threatening
frogs
habitats. In her viewpoint, if wetlands and water habitats
were been
not
allowed
to excessive
use
and development, it would not
change
anything about
frogs
habitats
because
global warming impact is unlikely to
stop
.