Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss about " cloud seeding" , a technique that has been tired to produce rain or snow in place of hail, as hail is harmful for crops. The author presents several evidence to illustrate the effectiveness of this procedure. However, the professor finds those instances dubious and refutes them all by providing counter arguments.
First of all, the author claims that, cloud seeding procedure is verified in laboratory environment and it is found that, this process can effectively alter hail pellets to light snow. In the contrary, the lecturer contends that, it might not be successful to make desirable effect in real life scenario and can cause more damage to crops by creating drought in some areas.
Secondly, another evidence is presented in the passage, which states that cloud seeding has been applied in urban areas and it results in controlled precipitation. Therefore, it proves the validity of the procedure and can be used effectively in desired areas. However, the professor challenges this point arguing that, this evidence can not be taken as granted as there is a possibility of make it work in city areas where air is polluted which favors cloud seeding process. But according to the lecturer, this does not guarantee success in unpolluted area where it is much needed.
Finally, the author presents local studies that was conducted in a farming region and it reported lesser hail damage compared to previous years. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the fact that, in that year, neighboring regions also less effected by hails. So, it does not necessarily proves the effectiveness of cloud seeding, as it might happen due to natural variation in local weather.
Both the reading passage and the lecture
discuss about "
;
cloud
seeding"
;
,
a technique that has
been tired
to produce rain or snow in place of
hail
, as
hail
is harmful for crops. The author presents
several evidence
to illustrate the effectiveness of this procedure.
However
, the professor finds those instances dubious and refutes them all by providing counter arguments.
First of all
, the author claims that,
cloud
seeding procedure
is verified
in laboratory environment and it
is found
that, this process can
effectively
alter
hail
pellets to light snow. In the contrary, the lecturer contends that, it might not be successful to
make
desirable effect in real life scenario and can cause more damage to crops by creating drought in
some
areas.
Secondly
, another evidence
is presented
in the passage, which states that
cloud
seeding has
been applied
in urban
areas
and it results in controlled precipitation.
Therefore
, it proves the validity of the procedure and can be
used
effectively
in desired
areas
.
However
, the professor challenges this point arguing that, this evidence can not
be taken
as granted as there is a possibility of
make
it work in city
areas
where air
is polluted
which favors
cloud
seeding process.
But
according to the lecturer, this does not guarantee success in unpolluted
area
where it is
much needed
.
Finally
, the author presents local studies that
was conducted
in a farming region and it reported lesser
hail
damage compared to previous years.
Conversely
, the lecturer brings up the fact that, in that year, neighboring regions
also
less effected by
hails
.
So
, it does not
necessarily
proves
the effectiveness of
cloud
seeding, as it might happen due to natural variation in local weather.