▶ Your Answer :
In the given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the lecturer and the author on the issue of the possible effective methods about protecting frog species in the world. The lecturer affirms that indeed, the suggestions presented by the author are all pointless because these solutions for rescuing them are less-effective or even non-effective, whereas the author suggests otherwise.
To begin with, the lecturer debunks the author's first conjecture. To elaborate in detail, the lecturer states that using less pesticides does harm for farmers than good for frogs. This is because using less insecticides can give rise to negative effects on farmer's crop and its yields. Furthermore, there are small pollution on frog's habitat due to its strict rules to use it. This casts doubt on the reading passage's assertion that prohibiting farmers from using harmful chemical pesticides can protect frogs.
On top of that, the speaker also indicates dissent over the reading passage's idea on antifungal medication and treatments to kill dangerous fungus for frogs. The lecturer sounds convinced that the author is making a manifest error since it only can generate small impacts on a small amount of individual frogs. On the other hand, because frog's habitats are so considerable large scale that human actions can not come up with all scale in fact. Furthermore, it also can not prevent frogs' every each generation from harmful fungus by this. So the lecturer confirms that it is an expansive and useless solution. However, the author clarifies that using antifungal treatments can save frog populations from infection.
Third, the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final point on protecting frog's habitats such as lakes and marshes is flawed. To corroborate this opinion, the lecturer mentions that it is just a secondary solution and the real reason of declination of its population is global warming. A lot of disappearance of water can be considered as a result of indirect phenomena, global warming. This counters the reading passage's argument that maintaining key water habitats for frogs can directly help many frogs species. With three convincing ideas that the lecturer posits, the assumptions made by the reading passage are all rendered groundless. |