▶ Your Answer :
In the given set of materials, there is
some discrepancy between the views of the lecturer and the author over the
issue of explanations of the ‘will-o’-the-wisp’ s existence. With three cogent
reasons, the lecturer raises objection to three hypotheses that the author
posits.
First of all, the lecturer debunks the
author’s first conjecture since chemical reaction cannot be the cause of the ‘will-o’-the-wisp’.
There was an experiment to examine whether chemicals cause the ‘will-o’-the-wisp,
but it turned out that light made out of chemical reaction has cool colored
light whereas the ‘will-o’-the-wisp has warm yellow colored light. This
counters the author’s suggestion that the ‘will-o’-the-wisp is a kind of
chemical illumination
In addition. the lecturer indicates dissent
over the author’s second idea. He thinks fireflies cannot be the source of the ‘will-o’-the-wisp,
as the light from the fireflies’ abdomens blinks unlike the constant glow of the
‘will-o’-the-wisp. This fact casts doubt on the author’s assertion that
glimmering abdomens of fireflies make the ‘will-o’-the-wisp.
Thirdly, the lecturer goes on to expound
that the author’s idea on barn owls is flawed. The barn owls cannot reflect the
light as much as expected since they are not completely white. Furthermore,
there is no source of consistent light to be reflected to the barn owls.
However, the author of the reading passage claims barn owls cause glow of the ‘will-o’-the-wisp.
Therefore with three convincing
explanations the lecturer sets forth, the author’s three theory are all
rendered invalid.
|