▶ Your Answer :
The writer of the reading passage enumerates three reasons
supporting wave energy facilities will be ubiquitous in the future. In relation
to this, the lecturer claims that these reasons are dwarfed by corresponding
counterarguments.
To
begin with, the reading passage indicates that, wave farm is constant generator
of power. When considering the fact that Coastal areas usually experience the
same seasonal changes in wave frequency and intensity each year. Thus it is
easy to predict the accurate capacity of a wave power facility. However, this
assertion is adversely commented upon by a corresponding counterargument.
According to the speaker, in the harsh marine area, the converter often breaks
down so it is hard to get the exact capacity of the wave farm. Therefore, the
assertion presented in the written part does not hold any water.
It
is also maintained in the reading material that wave energy facilities are good
for our environment. On the grounds that they don't have the burning of fossil
fuel such as oil, coal. This might be true to some extent, but the lecturer
expresses skepticism on this viewpoint by arguing that the chemical named rubber
is highly toxic and it is harmful to the marine organism when it leaks into the
ocean. According to what the speakers says, it is a bit of exaggeration to say
that they are eco-friendly.
Lastly, the reading passage purport that wave
farm doesn't have a negative impact on the natural beauty of the surround
landscape in that most of the things that comprise the wave farm are just below
the water. However, this point of view is somewhat loose. Based on what the
speaker assert. When visitors get close to the shore, they can see the
materials. As a result, it is improper to say that the last reason in support
of wave farm doesn’t destroy the natural scenery.
|