The reading and lecturer are both about a device which can stop desertification in a certain area. The author of the reading feels that the device will not successfully fight against the desertification and presents some reasons for holding this aspect. The lecturer challenged the claim made by the author. She is on the opinion that none of the reasons is convincing.
To begin with, the author argues that the device is very expensive and some country will not able to afford. The specific argument challenged by the lecturer. She mentions that this device can be reused. She also elaborates by bringing the point that it can be used for at least twenty trees, thus the cost is reasonable.
Second, the author suggests that people live in the desert area are very poor and difficult to pursue them to use the device. He also claims that in extreme weather they sometime could not afford their food then how they afford this kind of expensive device. The lecturer rebuts this by mentioning that this device not only helps to grow the plant but also can grow vegetable. She also adds that people can eat this vegetable and also branches of the tree they can use as firewood.
Third, the author posits that the device cannot store enough water. He also states that when the tree becomes big this device will not enough for the tree to survive. In contrast, the lecturer position is that if the root of the trees reaches the level of water they can survive even the device is removed. She also additionally says, in Sahara desert, 90% of the trees thrive in this way even the device remove two years ago.
The reading and
lecturer
are both about a
device
which can
stop
desertification in a certain area. The
author
of the reading feels that the
device
will not
successfully
fight against the desertification and presents
some
reasons for holding this aspect.
The
lecturer
challenged the claim made by the
author
. She is on the opinion that none of the reasons is convincing.
To
begin
with, the
author
argues that the
device
is
very
expensive and
some
country will not able to afford. The specific argument challenged by the
lecturer
. She mentions that this
device
can
be reused
. She
also
elaborates by bringing the point that it can be
used
for at least twenty
trees
,
thus
the cost is reasonable.
Second, the
author
suggests that
people
live
in the desert area are
very
poor and difficult to pursue them to
use
the
device
. He
also
claims that in extreme weather they sometime could not afford their food then how they afford this kind of expensive
device
. The
lecturer
rebuts this by mentioning that this
device
not
only
helps
to grow the plant
but
also
can grow vegetable. She
also
adds
that
people
can eat this vegetable and
also
branches of the
tree
they can
use
as firewood.
Third, the
author
posits that the
device
cannot store
enough
water. He
also
states that when the
tree
becomes
big
this
device
will not
enough
for the
tree
to survive.
In contrast
, the
lecturer
position is that if the root of the
trees
reaches the level of water they can survive even the
device
is removed
. She
also
additionally
says,
in Sahara desert
, 90% of the
trees
thrive in this way even the
device
remove two years ago.