In
this given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the view of the
author and the lecturer over the issue of the red rain in the Indian state of
Kerala. With three cogent explanations, the lecturer raises objections to the
alleged reasons for the rare weather phenomenon.
To
start with, the lecturer debunks the author's first conjecture since it is far-fetched/the evidence is not sufficient/the
evidence is inconclusive. To elaborate in detail, the lecturer claims
that a large number of bats should have died at the same time to occur the red
rain. Therefore, if
the author's argument is valid/if the author's argument was true(이렇게 써도 괜찮나요?), bat remains such as bones and wings of
the bats should have been found in the area. This is in direct opposition to
the author's claim that the red rain would have fallen as it
contained a large amount of the migrating bats' blood which were
killed by thunderstorm or meteor burst.
On
top of that, the lecturer also indicates the
dissent over the author's point on the reddish-brown rain since it has been disproven / it has not proved enough(이렇게 써도 괜찮나요?).
The lecturer sounds convinced that the author is making a manifest error about the reason on the
phenomenon since the philippines did not experience red rain. Moreover, other
areas such as Thailand or Vietnam which is located between the Philippines
and India did not have a similar phenomenon.
However, the author clarifies that a volcanic
eruption of Mount Mayon in the Philippines resulted in the red rain.
Thirdly,
the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's idea on chemical pollution is
flawed. The lecturer mentions the number of factory in the area to corroborate
his opinion. He adds that there are few factories in the area of India
and the phenomenon has never happened/arouse/occurred near
cities with a lot of factories with unfiltered chimneys. This counters the
author's theory that pollutants including industrial chemicals from factories
would have caused the red rain.