The article chiefly states that ethanol fuel cannot be a proper replacement for gasoline and it bolsters this idea with several reasons. In contrast, the lecturer contends that this mentality is completely debatable, citing three diverse reasons to contradict the points made in the reading passage.
First of all, the text specifies that ethanol, like gasoline, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and so it would not help to solve global warming. Conversely, it is stated by the speaker that although ethanol releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while it burns as a fuel, as ethanol is made from plants such as corn and sugar cane, those plants will absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow and this removal of CO2 would help to solve the global warming problem.
Furthermore, it is emphasized in the reading that the production of a significant amount of ethanol fuel from plants would decrease the amount of these sources for uses other than fuel. Nevertheless, the professor casts doubt on this point by stating that ethanol is made from cellulose, which is not animal food. Using this not-eaten inedible substance cannot lead to any problem for other uses other than fuel.
Finally, the article makes it clear that the real price of ethanol is much more than its current one because the government helps the producers by tax subsidies[ that lower the price]. {your second clause did not explain why the real price is higher} On the contrary, it is mentioned by the speaker that, in the future, the price of ethanol will decrease because of an increase in production. {or “because of an increase in production”} If the production number increases by three times, the price of ethanol will drop by forty percent and the government can delete [“remove” is better} it helps {it should be “help”, but “assistance” is a better choice here} without any stress
The article
chiefly
states that
ethanol
fuel
cannot be a proper replacement for gasoline and it bolsters this
idea
with several reasons.
In contrast
, the lecturer contends that this mentality is completely debatable, citing three diverse reasons to contradict the points made in the reading passage.
First of all
, the text specifies that
ethanol
, like gasoline, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and
so
it would not
help
to solve global warming.
Conversely
, it
is stated
by the speaker that although
ethanol
releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while it burns as a
fuel
, as
ethanol
is made
from plants such as corn and sugar cane, those plants will absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow and this removal of CO2 would
help
to solve the global warming problem.
Furthermore
, it
is emphasized
in the reading that the
production
of a significant amount of
ethanol
fuel
from plants would decrease the amount of these sources for
uses
other than
fuel
.
Nevertheless
, the professor casts doubt on this point by stating that
ethanol
is made
from cellulose, which is not animal food. Using this not-eaten inedible substance cannot lead to any problem for other
uses
other than fuel.
Finally
, the article
makes
it
clear
that the real
price
of
ethanol
is much more than its
current
one
because
the
government
helps
the producers by tax subsidies
[
that lower the
price]
. {your second clause did not
explain
why the real
price
is higher}
On the contrary
, it
is mentioned
by the speaker that, in the future, the
price
of
ethanol
will decrease
because
of an increase in
production
. {or “
because
of an increase in
production”}
If the
production
number increases by three times, the
price
of
ethanol
will drop by forty percent and the
government
can delete
[
“remove” is better
}
it
helps
{it should be “
help
”,
but
“assistance” is a better choice here} without any
stress