▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer argues that the three methodologies to get rid of cane toad are insufficient and dangerous for entire ecological environments. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that some specific prevention strategies such as national fence, volunteer program, and targeted virus would be great ways to reduce the population of cane toad.
To begin with, the lecturer says that national fence doesn't make sense for entangling cane toad. As she said, amphibian species so live in rivers and streams that could easily move to another site without any obstacles by ground rooted fence, which was used to entangle rabbits before. This counters the reading passage's claim that national fence is useful to prevent spreading current cane toad's population.
Next, the lecturer argues that untrained volunteers are more dangerous to destroy an ecological environment. For reducing the toad's population, volunteer should get rid of eggs, laid in rivers and streams. However, untrained volunteers absolutely cannot distinguish the differences between various amphibian species. In other words, volunteer would threaten an endangered amphibian species' population. This contradicts the reading passage's claim that many volunteers can be helpful to decrease the number of toads' population.
Finally, the lecturer points out that targeted virus methods make a severe damage to the original habitats. Virus cannot distinguish; this is because some of amphibians share their genetic characters. Furthermore, targeted disease-causing virus can be carried out the other region. For instance, if cane toad, originated from South America, targeted virus will be transferred to South America, This virus can destroy the original habitats which live in South America. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that disease-causing virus can be a good remedy to regulate the toads' population without any side effects.
|