▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer asserts that the three methods
which are in the reading passage are not practical to protect the frog
population.
This contradicts the reading passage's
claim that they solve the problem of declining frog population.
First of all, the lecturer claims that
reducing pesticides is not economically practical or fair.
Because farmers rely on pesticides a lot to
protect crops or to maintain competitiveness,
If laws are set to reduce it for farmer
living nearby a region where frog populations are decreasing, then they get a
lot of disadvantages compared to other farmers.
This contradicts the reading passage's
claim that if laws prohibited the farmers from using pesticides, it would
reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs.
On top of that, the lecturer points out
that treating fungus infection is expensive and inefficient.
This is because that if we want to use treatments
for fungus, then we should apply it to a frog, individually, and it is not
passed to the next generation. It creates cost and inefficiency.
This casts doubt on the reading passage's
claim that those treatments would protect sensitive frog populations from
infection.
Finally, the lecturer asserts that water
use or development does not affect frog habitats a lot.
Actually, the main reason about reducing
frog's habitats is the global-warming, so prohibiting water use and development
is not operative.
This opposes the reading passage's claim that
if lakes and marshes are protected from water use and development, many frog
species would recover.
|