The readinng and lecture have conflicting views on the solution proposed to save endangered golden frogs that live mauntan area of Panama. The former propses three solution to fight the fungus that attack golden frogs, the latter in the other hand disagree with the author's points.
First, The author claims that there is a type of bacterium which can be used to protect these golden frog. According to the reading this bacterium can be put on frog skin and therefore kill fungus. The professor believes that there flaws in the author's arguments. He says that introducing bacterium on frog skin works for a short time after that they stop working. This solution is a tamporary response and can't help as longtime answer. For this point the professor challenges the reading.
Secondly, the writer suggests that breeding golden frog in controled environment, which doesn't have fungus, and after that introduced back to their natural habitat can help eladicate this fungus problems. The lecturer, on the other hand, argues that this solution is not likely to work since other animal in the golden frog natural habitat are also infected. As a result, if the disease free frogs are are returned to this region they are likely to be infected by other animals. The professor show how the solution proposed is not going to work.
Third, the reading says that using some types of golden frogs that are resistant to the fungus infection will be the best solution. The speaker, shows the flaws of this practice, he mentions that using natural huminity to fight fungus requires amount of energy. If the frog spend such energy they will become week and will be vulnerable to many disease. Consequentely they will die from other illness due to weakness. This point show how the soltion proposed by the reading have some drawback.
The
readinng
and lecture have conflicting views on the
solution
proposed to save endangered
golden
frogs
that
live
mauntan
area of Panama. The former
propses
three
solution
to fight the
fungus
that attack
golden
frogs
, the latter in the
other
hand disagree with the author's points.
First
, The author claims that there is a type of bacterium which can be
used
to protect these
golden
frog
. According to the reading this bacterium can
be put
on
frog
skin and
therefore
kill
fungus
. The professor believes that there flaws in the author's arguments. He says that introducing bacterium on
frog
skin works for a short time after that they
stop
working. This
solution
is a
tamporary
response and can't
help
as longtime answer. For this point the professor challenges the reading.
Secondly
, the writer suggests that breeding
golden
frog
in
controled
environment, which doesn't have
fungus
, and after that introduced back to their natural habitat can
help
eladicate
this
fungus
problems. The lecturer, on the
other
hand, argues that this
solution
is not likely to work since
other
animal in the
golden
frog
natural habitat are
also
infected.
As a result
, if the disease free
frogs
are
are returned
to this region they are likely to
be infected
by
other
animals. The professor
show
how the
solution
proposed is not going to work.
Third, the reading says that using
some
types of
golden
frogs
that are resistant to the
fungus
infection will be the best
solution
. The speaker,
shows
the flaws of this practice, he mentions that using natural
huminity
to fight
fungus
requires amount of energy. If the
frog
spend such energy they will become week and will be vulnerable to
many disease
.
Consequentely
they will
die
from
other
illness due to weakness. This point
show
how the
soltion
proposed by the reading have
some
drawback.