The reading and the lecturer are both about "cloud seeding".

The reading and the lecturer are both about " cloud seeding" . the professor in the lecture totally disagrees with the three methods mentioned in the reading passage. In fact, she believes that these methods won't lead to satisfaction consequences at all. First of all, the author suggests that experiments in the laboratory support the idea that cloud seeding is effective in eliminating hail. This argument is challenged by the lecture. the professor says although the hail can be turned into rain and snow in experimental movement, it is also possible that hail, snow, and rain can be all prevented by cloud seeding. Consequently, it will cause drought. Crops will still be damaged as a result of lack of water. Secondly, the writer contends that there is evidence about the effectiveness of cloud seeding from several countries around the world. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by asserting that this successful application in Asia probably will not get a similar outcome in America. High air pollution offers favorable conditions for cloud seeding process because those polluted air can interact with cloud and seeding chemicals. Finally, it is stated in the article that these positive results suggest that cloud seeding should also be effective in protecting fields and farms in the United States. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that it unconvincing because hail damage in whole America not only decreases just in central of America but also in the east, south and north part of the country. So it is hard to say cloud seeding is the exact factor causes all those good things. Natural variation and local weather can also contribute to the elimination of hail disaster