Both the lecturer and the reading passage discuss the Everglades, a subtropical wetlands in Florida. The lecturer casts doubt on the author's assertion on the destruction of Everglades due to environmental problems, by presenting three counter-arguments.
First, the lecturer asserts that water pollution, which has harmed the Everglades, is declining. This is because the government has set a new regulation to limit hazardous chemicals entering the wetland. Therefore, farmers are now forced to use less poisonous fertilisers. This refutes the author's claim that water pollution destroys the wetland ecosystems.
Second, the lecturer claims that soil in the Everglades is recovering. This is because local people are restoring soil, and as this restoration process is accelerating, soil in the Everglades would return to its original state. This counters the author's assertion that soil is being lost rapidly, making Everglades impossible to maintain its ecosystems.
Lastly, the lecturer argues that it is unlikely that human development is a threat to wildlife in the Everglades. He indicates that the Florida goverment purchased properties in the Everglades, which are to be used as marsh land. This attempt will provide a habitat for the panthers. This contradicts the author's claim that wildlife and their haitats would completely disappear due to human activity. |