| |
| |
Both the lecture and reading passage hold different poisition respectively on the issue of fish farming. the lecture's argument is formed around many points that are in direct contrast to the material in the reading. First off, reading passage asserts that farmed fish would negatively affect wild fish. However, the lecture rebuts this by claiming that fish farming can protect endangered species by regulating their number, therefore can be recovered. Also, the reading passage says that chemical substances such as antibiotics accumulated in farmed fish can be harmful to humans. On the other hand, the lecture points that farmed fish are safer and healthier than other product such as battery chickens that use more artificial substances. In addition, the chemicals will be able to decomposed soon in the human body. Finally, the reading passage mentions that farming carnivorous fish will deplete wild fish stocks. In contrast, the lecture counters this point by claiming that there are a plentiful supply of vegitarian fish stock that farmed fish feed on. Furthermore, because it is also possible to farm vegitarian fish, farming carnivorous does not adverserly affect the ocean environments. In conclusion, the reading passage presents three aspects with regards to fish farming. However, the lecture's argument make it clear that none of these points justify the reading passage's claim. |