▶ 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 wave-energy facilities. The lecturer affirms that indeed, optimistic views on wave-energy facilities are just an illusion, whereas the author of the reading passage suggest otherwise. First, the lecturer debunks the author's first conjecture since wave-energy facilities are not constant and not dependable. The reason is that there are disruptions of power generation and moreover, converters malfunction frequently which may cause fluctuation to the use of wave farms. This view is in opposition to the author's claim that wave-energy facilities are constant and predictable so that we can rely on them. In addition, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the author's idea on the environmentally friendly aspect of wave farms. This is because wave-energy facilities contain harmful chemicals that can cause environmental problems. To be specific, toxic substances released from wave farms can negatively affect marine organisms. This rebuts the point made by the reading that wave farms are eco-friendly facilities which do not harm environment including marine ecosystem. Thirdly, the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final point on the affect of wave farms on the scenary of the landscape is flawed. As wave-energy facilities are painted in bright color, they can be highly visible so they can negatively affect the natural beauty. Moreover, they can even be spotted by tourists from beaches. This counters the author's theory that wave farms do not harm scenery because they are unlikely to be noticeable to other people. |