The professor discusses the "let it burn" policy and refutes each of the points made in the reading passage about the damages caused by this policy.

The professor discusses the " let it burn" policy and refutes each of the points made in the reading passage about the damages caused by this policy. The information she presents contradicts the facts outlined in the article. First, the speaker asserts that the scorched lands can be colonized by new plants, and the new plants will increase the diversity of plants in the area. Moreover, some small plants need more space in order to grow; therefore, these scorched lands are suitable for them. What's more, since some seeds need heat for germination, these lands would be very beneficial. However, the article says that what had been a national treasure now seems like a devastated wasteland. Second, the lecturer posits that numerous opportunities can be created to enhance the park wildlife. Although it seemed that some habitats were destroyed, the scorched lands could be an ideal habitat for other animals such as rabbits and hares. As for the concern about the food chain, new animals, for instance rabbits, can certainly become a strong food chain in the park wildlife. On the other hand, the reading passage specifies that the policy will lead to destruction of habitats and the disruption of food chains. Third, about the problem with the tourist attraction, the professor cites that disasters such as the one in 1988 is rare, since combinations of distinct environmental factors are necessary in order to happen. Hence, such catastrophic incidents would not happen every year. People would come back the next year and each year after that. On the contrary, the article indicates that the tourist season would cut short and the local businesses would suffer from this wrong policy.