The reading passage and lecture have conflicting opinions about whether or not replacing gasoline for ethanol is really beneficial. The article strongly postulates that using ethanol instead of gasoline is unfavorable for three compelling reasons. On the other hand, the listening adamantly delinates that ethanol is a very good alternative for gasoline. Also, none of the three presented reasons are convincing.
First and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt, global warming problem wouldn' t be solved by using more ethanol owing to the fact that using ethanol as fuel can release carbon dioxide like gasoline. Therefore, using more ethanol wouldn' t help to solve one of the biggest environmental issues. Nonetheless, the lecture offsets these points by declaring that using ethanol will not add problems to global warming. the released carbon dioxide from using ethanol as fuel can be compensated by cultivating more plants and trees that produce ethanol. In other words, farming corns can reduce carbon dioxide because plants absorb this harmful gas.
On top of this, the professor in lecture further points out that on a large scale ethanol can be produced from plants using cellious. meaning that producing ethanol can meet the individual' s demands by producing ethanol from trees that aren' t eaten by animals. As a result, the animals wouldn' t suffer from food shortage. These claims refute the writer implication of how producing ethanol from plants would harm animals. Also, reduce the number of available trees.
The article lastly asserts that using gasoline would cast people less because governments are already paying subsidies tax to people who produce ethanol. which means the ethanol price will increase dramatically if it' s used as fuel. The speaker in lecture counters these points by insisting that if there is more production of the ethanol the ethanol price would decrease.
The reading passage and
lecture
have conflicting opinions about
whether or not
replacing
gasoline
for
ethanol
is
really
beneficial. The article
strongly
postulates that using
ethanol
instead
of
gasoline
is unfavorable for three compelling reasons.
On the other hand
, the listening
adamantly
delinates
that
ethanol
is a
very
good
alternative for
gasoline
.
Also
, none of the three presented reasons are convincing.
First
and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt, global warming problem
wouldn&
#039; t
be solved
by using more
ethanol
owing to the fact that using
ethanol
as fuel can release carbon dioxide like
gasoline
.
Therefore
, using more
ethanol
wouldn&
#039; t
help
to solve one of the biggest environmental issues. Nonetheless, the
lecture
offsets these points by declaring that using
ethanol
will not
add
problems to global warming.
the
released carbon dioxide from using
ethanol
as fuel can
be compensated
by cultivating more
plants
and trees that produce
ethanol
.
In other words
, farming corns can
reduce
carbon dioxide
because
plants
absorb this harmful gas.
On top of this, the professor in
lecture
further
points out that on a large scale
ethanol
can
be produced
from
plants
using
cellious
.
meaning
that producing
ethanol
can
meet
the
individual&
#039; s demands by producing
ethanol
from trees that
aren&
#039; t eaten by animals.
As a result
, the animals
wouldn&
#039; t suffer from food shortage. These claims refute the writer implication of how producing
ethanol
from
plants
would harm animals.
Also
,
reduce
the number of available trees.
The article
lastly
asserts that using
gasoline
would cast
people
less
because
governments
are already paying subsidies tax to
people
who produce
ethanol
.
which
means the
ethanol
price will increase
dramatically
if
it&
#039; s
used
as fuel. The speaker in
lecture
counters these points by insisting that if there is more production of the
ethanol
the
ethanol
price would decrease.
13Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
30Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
13Mistakes