The lecturer contends that (the)
benefit(s) of having green rooftops are
exaggerated. This contradicts the reading passage's assertion that having green
rooftops is beneficial for several reasons.
First, the lecturer argues that having green rooftops
can't solve the problem of shortage of spaces to build parks. This is
because even if we decorate rooftops with various plants, there is no point to
set up such environment because normal pedestrians simply don't have any
access to green rooftops. This counters the reading passage's assumption that
having green rooftops can provide additional spaces for parks, ergo it is
beneficial.
Secondly, the lecturer suggests that having green
rooftop can't increase the beauty of cities. Because people would normally walk
on sidewalks, they can't tell whether there is a (are) beautiful gardens on rooftops or there is not. If people
can't notice if there is a garden on rooftops, then what's the point of having
green rooftops? This casts doubt on reading passage's point that having green
rooftops greatly enhances the beauty of cities.
Lastly, the lecturer says that having green rooftop
costs more than having normal rooftops. This is because installing costs and in
addition to that, maintenance of various plants also costs money periodically.
For example, soils of rooftops can clog up the drainage, resulting
(needing) maintenance which costs money. This
refutes the reading passage's assumption that having green rooftops insulates,
thus (being) more beneficial than having normal
rooftops.
(This is a fair, clear essay with
well-organized contrast between reading and listening passage.)