▶ Your Answer :
In the given a set of materials, the reading and the lecture both deal with carbon sequestration. The lecturer challenges the reading passage’s argument that there are some effective ways to reduce a mount of CO2 in the atmosphere by using carbon sequestration. First of all, the author contends that adding iron into the oceans to increase phytoplankton is one of the method. In contrast, the lecturer refutes the claim by saying that it is not effective way to increase phytoplankton. When their population increases quickly, nitrogen is depleted, which lead to a decrease in the overall population of phytoplankton. A recently study shows that only small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can decrease. So, the lecturer insists the statement made in the reading is false. Second, the writer insists that making artificial wetlands is the vital method to reduce CO2 in the air. The speaker, however, rebuts the argument by asserting that storage capacity of artificial wetlands less than that of natural ones. Moreover, it takes a long time to fully develop artificial wetlands, so they are ineffective. Thus, the speaker maintains the notion made in the reading is erroneous. Finally, the article argues that storing CO2 in the coal mines is the another effective ways to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. On the other hand, the professor counters the contention by stating that when CO2 contacts coal, methane is emitted. Since methane include CO2, CO2 is emitted into the air as well. Furthermore, not all of the CO2 stick to the coal, some of them would leaked out into atmosphere. For these reasons, the total amount of CO2 cannot decrease. Therefore, the professor argues the idea made in the reading does not make sense. |