The reading claims that there are many critics that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that ethanol is a good alternative for gasoline and the reasons are not convincing. He refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the article avers that the increased use of ethanol fuel would not help to solve one of the biggest environmental problems caused by gasoline use; global warming. In contrast, the lecturer opposes this point by saying that ethanol fuel will not add global warming. In fact, he says it is true that ethanol fuel when is burned, it releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere but it made from plants such as corn and this counters the releasing of the gas since every growing of plants will absorb this carbon dioxide. So, growing plants will remove the gas from the atmosphere.
Second, the reading asserts that the production of significant amounts of ethanol would dramatically reduce the amount of plants available for uses other than fuel. On the other hand, the professor counters this point by stating that this will not reduce of these resources because the ethanol can produce from cellulose, which is component of plants in the cell wall, so this will not affect the source of animals. This appears a contradiction to the information made in the passage.
Third, the artical posits that ethanol fuel will never be able to compete with gasoline on price. Conversely, the professor casts doubt on this point by explaining that in the future, there will not be compete with gasoline in price. Accroding to the professor, when enough people will buy this fuel, the government subsidies will stop and the production will increase so this leads to reduce the price of the fuel. He mentions that the production will increase three times than gasoline and the proce will drop off by 40%.
The reading claims that there are
many
critics that
ethanol
is not a
good
replacement for
gasoline
and provides three reasons of support.
However
, the
professor
states that
ethanol
is a
good
alternative for
gasoline
and the reasons are not convincing. He refutes each of the author's reasons.
First
, the article avers that the increased
use
of
ethanol
fuel
would not
help
to solve one of the biggest environmental problems caused by
gasoline
use
; global warming.
In contrast
, the lecturer opposes this point by saying that
ethanol
fuel
will not
add
global warming. In fact, he says it is true that
ethanol
fuel
when
is burned
, it releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
but
it made from
plants
such as corn and this counters the releasing of the gas since every growing of
plants
will absorb this carbon dioxide.
So
, growing
plants
will remove the gas from the atmosphere.
Second, the reading asserts that the production of significant amounts of
ethanol
would
dramatically
reduce
the amount of
plants
available for
uses
other than
fuel
.
On the other hand
, the
professor
counters this point by stating that this will not
reduce
of these resources
because
the
ethanol
can produce from cellulose, which is component of
plants
in the cell wall,
so
this will not affect the source of animals. This appears a contradiction to the information made in the passage.
Third, the
artical
posits that
ethanol
fuel
will never be able to compete with
gasoline
on price.
Conversely
, the
professor
casts doubt on this point by explaining that in the future, there will not be
compete
with
gasoline
in price.
Accroding
to the
professor
, when
enough
people
will
buy
this
fuel
, the
government
subsidies will
stop
and the production will increase
so
this leads to
reduce
the price of the
fuel
. He mentions that the production will increase three
times
than
gasoline
and the
proce
will drop off by 40%.