The professor in the lecture totally disagrees with the three solutions mentioned in the reading passage.

The professor in the lecture totally disagrees with the three solutions mentioned in the reading passage. In fact, she believes that these solutions won’t lead to satisfaction consequences at all. First of all, the author suggests that the first option is to reestablish Torreya in the same location in which it thrived for a long time. Specifically, in Florida. This argument is challenged by the lecture. The professor mentions that help the Torreya reestablish in its original habitat is unlikely to success. She claims that the coolest and dampest area of the microclimate is strongly influenced by many worldwide climate effects such as the global warming, thus it is impossible for Torreya to thrive again in the same place. Secondly, the writer contends that the second option to move Torreya to an entirely different location, far from its Florida microclimate it's will be success but it is unrealistic. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by asserting that she takes Black Locus as an example. Black Locus thrives quickly after entering a new habitat and endangers many scarce species. The professor points out the disastrous consequence. Finally, it is stated in the article that the third option is to preserve Torreya in research centers won’t be a good method either. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that Trees preserved in the center cannot resist diseases in the long run. the professor again opposes the last method in the reading passage.