The passage asserts that human population is integral factor for decreasing the birds' growth and provided three reasons of support. The professor disavows this point and says that this passage claim is unconvincing and rejects all reasons of article.
First, the article states that human destroy bird habitat, since they build new construction. The lecturer, on the contrary, disaproves this point by explaining that the urban areas are unpleasant for some types of bird, but they are suitable places for other ones, since those places make a better and larger areas for other types. She avers that urban areas have created numerous places for some birds such as: pigeon and seagul, whereas those areas lead to shrink in other types populatin.
Second, the bird habitant are converted to agricultural lands, according to reading. The professor debunks this point by saying that the passage assume is not correct, since in the United States less lands are changed to agricultural use. This results in presenting new high productive crops which provide food for more units, since there is no need to destroy lands for farming.
Third, the article claims that chemical pesticides used in agriculture lead to decline in bird population, since they kill birds or even lower their reprocuction rates. The professor repudiates this idea by explaining that two changes are provided which present less toxic pesticided and try to grow pest-resistant crops. These crops and products have no dangerous chemical for birds, since they no longer birds at all.
The passage asserts that human population is integral factor for decreasing the birds' growth and provided three reasons of support. The professor disavows this point and says that this passage claim is unconvincing and rejects all reasons of article.
First
, the article states that human
destroy
bird
habitat, since they build new construction. The lecturer,
on the contrary
,
disaproves
this point by explaining that the urban
areas
are unpleasant for
some
types of
bird
,
but
they are suitable places for other ones, since those places
make
a better and larger
areas
for other types. She avers that urban
areas
have created numerous places for
some
birds
such as: pigeon and
seagul
, whereas those
areas
lead to shrink in other types
populatin
.
Second, the
bird
habitant
are converted
to agricultural lands, according to reading. The professor debunks this point by saying that the passage assume is not correct, since in the United States less lands are
changed
to agricultural
use
. This results in presenting new high productive crops which provide food for more units, since there is no need to
destroy
lands for farming.
Third, the article claims that chemical pesticides
used
in agriculture lead to decline in
bird
population, since they kill
birds
or even lower their
reprocuction
rates. The professor repudiates this
idea
by explaining that two
changes
are provided
which present less toxic
pesticided
and try to grow pest-resistant crops. These crops and products have no
dangerous
chemical for
birds
, since they no longer
birds
at all.