The passage mainly explains that policy "let it burn" was not useful about burning in Yellowstone since it hurts to there negatively.

The passage mainly explains that policy " let it burn" was not useful about burning in Yellowstone since it hurts to there negatively. However, the lecture introduces some evidences that undermine such claim. First, the article claims that Yellowstone fire terrigeted huge damage to the plants in the park. The professor casts doubt this point by saying that vegetation condition became better after burning because new plants clonized Yellowstone It is argued that more diversity in floral reasoning that they found new opportunity for growing. So, for example, smaller plans are encountered by better condition for living, or seeds are germinated under high temperature due to fire. Second, a lot of animals were affected by Yellowstone fire because of destruction in their habitats, as the author claims, is repudiated by the lecturer. She mentions that animals had found ideal habitats for debuting new life because new plants are provided new habitats for themselves like hair, rabit and predator of these animals. Third, the reading points that burning is turned park to a unattractiveness place for tourism. In contrast, the speaking says that Yellowstone became more dense than past after burning because of more precipitation. That attracted more tourism for visiting from there.