In this set of materials, both the reading passage and the lecture discussed the replacement of gasoline with ethanol. The reading passage firmly criticize this replacement, however the lecture repudiated what stated in the reading resting upon fallacious premises and provides three counterclaims proofing that ethanol is an excellent alternative to be used instead of gasoline.
Firstly, the reading argued that if we started to use ethanol largely, we would cause more environmental problems, as one of the emission of ethanol combustion is carbon dioxide which is in fact one of the greenhouses; therefore, we would trap more heat in the atmosphere. The professor contradicted this point by acknowledging that as ethanol is being produced by corns, so if we want to produce more of that fuel we would have to harvest more corn plants consequently, the corns plants would use more case carbon dioxide from air as one sources of their nutrition.
Secondly, the article claimed that if we used corns for producing ethanol fuel, there would be a dramatic reduce of the amount of plants available for other uses like feeding farm animals. Notwithstanding the professor highlighted that, in the process of ethanol production some parts of the corn plant that are not eaten by animals like caws and chicken, are being used, so this two procedure will not interfere each other at all.
Lastly, the reading contended that usage of ethanol is not economically convincing if the government stop subcidizing this fuel. This seem to be incorrect as explained in the lecture. The speaker articulate that in near future the demand for ethanol fuel will rise, so that factories would have to increase their production; consequently even if the government stop its taxes, the price of ethanol fuel would decrease to a high extent.
In this set of materials, both the
reading
passage and the lecture discussed the replacement of gasoline with
ethanol
. The
reading
passage
firmly
criticize this replacement,
however
the lecture repudiated what stated in the
reading
resting upon fallacious premises and provides three counterclaims proofing that
ethanol
is an excellent alternative to be
used
instead
of gasoline.
Firstly
, the
reading
argued that if we
started
to
use
ethanol
largely
, we would cause more environmental problems, as one of the emission of
ethanol
combustion is carbon dioxide which is in fact one of the greenhouses;
therefore
, we would trap more heat in the atmosphere. The professor contradicted this point by acknowledging that as
ethanol
is
being produced
by
corns
,
so
if we want to produce more of that
fuel
we would
have to
harvest more
corn
plants
consequently
, the
corns
plants
would
use
more case carbon dioxide from air as one sources of their nutrition.
Secondly
, the article claimed that if we
used
corns
for producing
ethanol
fuel
, there would be a dramatic
reduce
of the amount of
plants
available for other
uses
like feeding farm animals. Notwithstanding the professor highlighted that, in the process of
ethanol
production
some
parts of the
corn
plant
that are not eaten by animals like caws and chicken, are being
used
,
so
this two procedure will not interfere each other at all.
Lastly
, the
reading
contended that usage of
ethanol
is not
economically
convincing if the
government
stop
subcidizing
this
fuel
.
This seem
to be incorrect as
explained
in the lecture. The speaker articulate that in near future the demand for
ethanol
fuel
will rise,
so
that factories would
have to
increase their production;
consequently
even if the
government
stop
its taxes, the price of
ethanol
fuel
would decrease to a high extent.