The reading passage and the lecturer both concentrated on a problem that has been around for the last decades. The passage proposes 3 main theories regarding the normality of the increase of the sea level. Nevertheless, the claims made In the article are repudiated by the lecturer as her viewpoint is that it is definitely not natural and it is a result of human actions.
First and foremost, referring to the reading passage, the increase is gradual and slow, and the passage addresses that by looking and analyzing data, it is proven that there is nothing to worry about as it is a normal thing that had happened before. However, the lecturer asserts that the rise of sea levels is rapid and fast. The lecturer emphasizes the notion that we must worry because if humanity did not act quickly the future will suffer.
A second addition, the writer further mentions that the rise in the polar of ice is clearly not the cause of the increase. Due to the fact that the ice is already inside the water. She portrayed what she means by explaining how if ice cubes melted in a cup of water, it would never spill. It is declared in the article that the reason behind the rise of sea levels is still mysterious to scientists. She mentions that NASA has stated that they are still unaware of the cause. The lecturer, on the other hand, claims that human activity is the main reason that resulted in impacting sea levels. She illustrated what she means by elaborating that ice melting on land is the main cause resulted from another factor. She subsequently continues to state that burning fossil fuel is the most effecting factor.
Lastly, the author posits that the same thing as what happened previously would happen again. According to the article’s writer, there is enough time to adjust. In contrast, the lecturer’s stance is that adjusting is not possible. She makes the statement that our economy is based everywhere including around water sources. Therefore, it would affect the country’s economic status as the landmass will decrease by approximately 20%.
To sum up, the lecturer and the article’s author have distinct perspectives. The article’s writer believes that the increase in sea levels is not that big of a deal. On the contrary, the lecturer supposes that it is not as normal as some might argue. 
The reading  
passage
 and the  
lecturer
 both concentrated on a problem that has been around for the last decades. The  
passage
 proposes 3 main theories regarding the normality of the  
increase
 of the  
sea
  level
.  
Nevertheless
, the claims made In the  
article
  are repudiated
 by the  
lecturer
 as her viewpoint is that it is definitely not natural and it is a result of human actions. 
First
 and foremost, referring to the reading  
passage
, the  
increase
 is gradual and slow, and the  
passage
 addresses that by looking and analyzing data, it  
is proven
 that there is nothing to worry about as it is a normal thing that had happened  
before
.  
However
, the  
lecturer
 asserts that the rise of  
sea
  levels
 is rapid and  
fast
. The  
lecturer
 emphasizes the notion that we  
must
 worry  
because
 if humanity did not act  
quickly
 the future will suffer.
A second addition, the writer  
further
 mentions that the rise in the polar of ice is  
clearly
 not the cause of the  
increase
. Due to the fact that the ice is already inside the water. She portrayed what she means by explaining how if ice cubes melted in a cup of water, it would never spill. It  
is declared
 in the  
article
 that the reason behind the rise of  
sea
  levels
 is  
still
 mysterious to scientists. She mentions that NASA has stated that they are  
still
 unaware of the cause. The  
lecturer
,  
on the other hand
, claims that human activity is the main reason that resulted in impacting  
sea
  levels
. She illustrated what she means by elaborating that ice melting on land is the main cause resulted from another factor. She  
subsequently
 continues to state that burning fossil fuel is the most effecting factor. 
Lastly
, the author posits that the same thing as what happened previously would happen again. According to the  
article’s
 writer, there is  
enough
 time to adjust.  
In contrast
, the  
lecturer’s
 stance is that adjusting is not possible. She  
makes
 the statement that our economy  
is based
 everywhere including around water sources.  
Therefore
, it would affect the country’s economic status as the landmass will decrease by approximately 20%.
To sum up, the  
lecturer
 and the  
article’s
 author have distinct perspectives. The  
article’s
 writer believes that the  
increase
 in  
sea
  levels
 is not that  
big
 of a deal.  
On the contrary
, the  
lecturer
 supposes that it is not as normal as  
some
 might argue.