▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage provides several
evidences that the regulation of local fishes, Atlantic menhaden, in a reaction
to the decrease of the species, may cause negative backlash in both of local society
and ecosystem. However, the professor in the lecture refutes the author’s claim
and points out that the limiting the number of the species actually benefits
all.
First of all, the professor mentions
that eliminating predator, striped bass, could cause severe backfire to the whole
ecosystem. Since the fish species has intimate relationship with other part of
nature, the countering effect might be huge in a food chain system. This
refutes the author’s claim that instead of reducing human’s fishing activity,
it is better to reduce the number of its predator.
Second, the lecturer argues that
Atlantic menhaden is not an attractive resource as a staple for livestock.
There are a number of suitable replacements for this fish. Other possible
alternatives, such as soybean are much cheaper. This counter’s the author’s
assertion that the rich protein within Atlantic menhaden is valuable as a resource,
so that people should continue the hunting.
Lastly, according to the lecture, limiting
the number of the species is actually beneficial to the fishers. The amount of caught
fish might be diminished at the beginning. In fact, it will flourish shortly
after the regulation and eventually gives much more advantages. This casts
doubts on the author’s claim that fishermen would suffer a losing job due to
this regulation.
Good (24–30) 전체적으로 내용 정리 잘하셨습니다. 문법도 괜찮습니다.
두번째 본문에 counter's-->counters
수고하셨습니다~
|