Both the lecturer and the reading passage discuss red rain, a phenomenon in the Idian state of Kerala. The lecturer casts doubt on the author's claim on several plusible reasons for this phenomenon, by presenting three counter-arguments.
First, the lecturer asserts that it is unlikely that the blood of bats is the main cause of red rain. This is because tremendous amount of bats need to be destroyed for this phenomenon of red rain to occur. In addition, if numerous bats were destroyed, remains of the bats should have been found. This counters the author's assertion that red rain contained the blood of bats.
Second, the lecturer claims that volcanic eruption in the Philippines, as an explanation for the red rain, is unconvincing. He says that if the red rain happened due to vocanic activity, the entire Philiphines should have experienced the red rain. Moreover, the countries such as Vietnam, which is situated between Philiphines and India did not experience the red rain. This refutes the author's claim that volcanic eruption created the red rain.
Lastly, the lecturer argues that the theory that chemical pollution caused the red rain phenomenon is disputable. He claims that because only few factories were in India, chemical emission was not severe. Moreover, the red rain did not happen in regions where most factories are concentrated. This opposes the reading passage's claim that chemical pollution created the red rain in Kerala. |