▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer opposes the given article by calling the perspective “optimistic”
and referring to some experts’ expression of “illusion.” Vis-à-vis to the three
points made in the article that wave power is reliable, eco-friendly, and not
negatively affecting the surrounding landscape, she claims that they could be
rebutted with the following arguments.
First, due to technical problems which frequently take place, power generators
could be easily disrupted. As a result, they malfunction and thus are
inconstant and unpredictable in terms of generating power through wave, which
is totally the opposite from the writer’s description.
Secondly, the article demonstrates that wave-energy facilities are
eco-friendly and do not cause any environmental damage since no fossil fuel is
used in turbine and they fluctuate according to waves. However, the speaker
points out that turbines imply harmful chemicals inside of each, so if leaked
into the ocean, the toxic materials will cause huge damage to the marine
ecosystem.
Lastly, the lecturer explains that the floating converters to generate
wave energy are highly visible as they are painted in bright colors. Therefore,
tourists can easily see find them in the landscape, which makes the claim “no
negative impact on the surrounding landscape” a false statement.
Considering all the counterarguments above,
the teacher effectively illustrates why the article positive to wave energy
cannot be absolutely true and that society needs to carefully deliberate on whether
or not to use wave energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. |