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