The passage and the talk both discuss the declining in the population of frogs and the methods to prevent their extinction. The writer contends that by implementing some works like legislating new rules in using pesticides, using some drugs for fungus treatment, and also eliciting less water by humans we can save these frogs from dying out. The lecturer, however, refutes the author's assessments. She demonstrates three reason to cast doubt on the claim made in the reading.
The first allegation of the script against which the orator argues is that one of the threats to the frogs is the pesticides used by farmers and new strict rules should restrict the usage of these chemical materials. In contrast, the professor highlights the fact that it would not be economical and functional, because ultimate cost of harvests would increase. She further asserts that this would be disadvantage for the farming and they could not keep the pace of competing with other farms, which have not been imposed by these laws.
Second, according to the text, another deadly element for the frogs is fungus, and we should use some treatments for them; although the speaker finds this idea debatable. She bolsters her opinion by stating that this remedy should use for every single frog. Therefore in that large scale it would be difficult to carry out, and is not practical. Furthermore, this drug do not pass to their offspring, and it must be use again for the next generation one by one.
Lastly, the lecture contradicts this fallacy of the passage that frogs' habitat is threatening by human activities like overusing of water resources, saying that the major factor which endangers their residence is global warming.
The passage and the talk both discuss the declining in the population of
frogs
and the methods to
prevent
their extinction. The writer contends that by implementing
some
works like legislating new
rules
in using pesticides, using
some
drugs for fungus treatment, and
also
eliciting less water by humans we can save these
frogs
from dying out.
The
lecturer,
however
, refutes the author's assessments. She demonstrates three reason to cast doubt on the claim made in the reading.
The
first
allegation of the script against which the orator argues is that one of the threats to the
frogs
is the pesticides
used
by farmers and new strict
rules
should restrict the usage of these chemical materials.
In contrast
, the professor highlights the fact that it would not be economical and functional,
because
ultimate cost of harvests would increase. She
further
asserts that this would be disadvantage for the
farming and
they could not
keep
the pace of competing with other farms, which have not
been imposed
by these laws.
Second, according to the text, another deadly element for the
frogs
is fungus, and we should
use
some
treatments for them; although the speaker finds this
idea
debatable. She bolsters her opinion by stating that this remedy should
use
for every single
frog
.
Therefore
in that large scale it would be difficult to carry out, and is not practical.
Furthermore
,
this drug do
not pass to their offspring, and it
must
be
use
again for the
next
generation one by one.
Lastly
, the lecture contradicts this fallacy of the passage that frogs' habitat is threatening by human activities like overusing of water resources, saying that the major factor which endangers their residence is global warming.