In term of whether proposed methods to solve the problem of declining frog population are beneficial or not the author and the lecturer contradict each other. The author in the article states several methods which help to protect frogs from extinction, on the other hand, the professor in the lecture refutes each method and states that none of these methods are practical solutions for this problem.
Firstly, the author states that frogs harmed by pesticides which enter to frogs body and make severe problems. the authorities should enact some regulations to prohibit these chemical substance uses, in contrast, the professor rebuts this claims and states that reducing the pesticides are not economic solution because due to this action crops decrease dramatically and farmers should use others materials Secondly, the article asserts that fungus is the main reason in frog population which lead to some infection on frogs. Therefore, we scientist should discover some ways such as antifungal medication to prevent this infection. On the contrary, the speaker disclaims this concept and contends that frogs treatment with antifungal are very difficult because these treatments should be used in the large-scale and each frog. Consequently, this action is very complicated and expensive.
Finally, the reading asserts that the frog population decrease owing to human activity and change frogs natural habitats such as wetland and marsh. However, the professor confesses that protecting the marshland and wetland is a good idea but, these habitats threatened by global warming. Thus, protecting these land cannot prevent from harm is very arduous if occur of global warming.
in the nutshell, the professor in the lecture gainsay all methods which suggested by the author in the reading.
In term of whether proposed
methods
to solve the problem of declining
frog
population are beneficial or not the
author
and the lecturer contradict each other. The
author
in the article
states
several
methods
which
help
to protect
frogs
from extinction,
on the other hand
, the
professor
in the lecture refutes each
method
and
states
that none of these
methods
are practical solutions for this problem.
Firstly
, the
author
states
that
frogs
harmed by pesticides which enter to
frogs
body and
make
severe problems.
the
authorities should enact
some
regulations to prohibit these chemical substance
uses
,
in contrast
, the
professor
rebuts this claims and
states
that reducing the pesticides are not economic solution
because
due to this action crops decrease
dramatically
and farmers should
use
others materials
Secondly
, the article asserts that fungus is the main reason in
frog
population which lead to
some
infection on
frogs
.
Therefore
,
we scientist
should discover
some
ways such as antifungal medication to
prevent
this infection.
On the contrary
, the speaker disclaims this concept and contends that
frogs
treatment with antifungal are
very
difficult
because
these treatments should be
used
in the large-scale and each
frog
.
Consequently
, this action is
very
complicated and expensive.
Finally
, the reading asserts that the
frog
population decrease owing to human activity and
change
frogs
natural habitats such as wetland and marsh.
However
, the
professor
confesses that protecting the marshland and wetland is a
good
idea
but
, these habitats threatened by global warming.
Thus
, protecting these land cannot
prevent
from harm is
very
arduous if occur of global warming.
in
the nutshell, the
professor
in the lecture gainsay all
methods
which suggested by the
author
in the reading.