The reading claims that private collectors have been selling and buying fossils and this is an unfortunate development for both scientists and the general public. It provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that there are some negative consequences but the benefits of the private collectors are more than the disdvantages and she refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the article avers that the public suffers because fossils that would otherwise be donated to museums where everyone can see them are sold to private collectors who don't allow the public to view their collection. In contrast, the speaker opposes this point by stating that the public has a great opportunity to see the fossils because of the collectors. These collectors pruchase a lot of fossils, as a result, they would display them for public such as schools and museums.
Second, the passage asserts that scientists are likely to lose access to some of the important fossils and thereby miss out on potentially crucial discoveries about extinct life form. On the other hand, the professor counters this point by saying that this point is not realistic. In fact, before they put the value to sell the fossils, scientists identify the fossils by performing tests and investigations. Actually, if the fossils has any information, it should be done by experts and scientists community, so the scientists are not going to miss the important information in the fossils.
Third, the passage posits that commercial fossil collectors often destroy valuable scientific evidence associated with the fossils they unearth. Conversely, the professor casts doubt on this point by explaining that there is no damage for the fossils because this would lead to discovery for many other fossils. Frankly, the process of collecting the fossils run by an university or other facilities and a lot of other fossils would be discovered by the collectors which help the scientists to get information from the fossils.
The reading claims that private collectors have been selling and buying
fossils
and this is an unfortunate development for both
scientists
and the general
public
. It provides three reasons of support.
However
, the professor states that there are
some
negative
consequences
but
the benefits of the private collectors are more than the
disdvantages and
she refutes each of the author's reasons.
First
, the article avers that the
public
suffers
because
fossils
that would
otherwise
be donated
to museums where everyone can
see
them
are sold
to private collectors who don't
allow
the
public
to view their collection.
In contrast
, the speaker opposes this
point
by stating that the
public
has a great opportunity to
see
the
fossils
because
of the collectors. These collectors
pruchase
a lot of
fossils
,
as a result
, they would display them for
public
such as schools and museums.
Second, the passage asserts that
scientists
are likely to lose access to
some of the
important
fossils
and thereby miss out on
potentially
crucial discoveries about extinct life form. On the
other
hand, the professor counters this
point
by saying that this
point
is not realistic. In fact,
before
they put the value to sell the
fossils
,
scientists
identify the
fossils
by performing
tests
and investigations. Actually, if the
fossils
has any information, it should
be done
by experts and
scientists
community,
so
the
scientists
are not going to miss the
important
information in the fossils.
Third, the passage posits that commercial
fossil
collectors
often
destroy
valuable scientific evidence associated with the
fossils
they unearth.
Conversely
, the professor casts doubt on this
point
by explaining that there is no damage for the
fossils
because
this would lead to discovery for
many
other
fossils
.
Frankly
, the process of collecting the
fossils
run by
an
university or
other
facilities and
a lot of
other
fossils
would
be discovered
by the collectors which
help
the
scientists
to
get
information from the
fossils
.