▶ Your Answer :
According
to the reading, there is ample support for the author's claim that preventing
the menhaden fishing will be inconvenient and harm. On the other hand, the
lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument.
First, the professor insists that it is doubtful that this restriction
will bring economic problem. If the menhaden's population will increase due to the
restriction, it would be helpful for the fishing industries. Also, even if the
menhaden fishing is prohibited, human will be able to adapt to new circumstance
and find other means to earn money. This casts doubt on the reading passage's
suggestion that preventing the menhaden fishing will negatively affect the
fishing industries.
Next, the professor contends that it is untrue that this regulation will
destroy the aquatic food chain. The food chain has potential to maintain
itself, so they will be stable in spite of changing number of the menhaden. For
example, the striped bass that are predators of menhaden can sustain while
eating other fish and algae. This refutes the reading passage's assertion that
preventing the menhaden fishing will cause destruction of the food chain.
Finally, the professor argues that restricting the number of striped
bass instead of the menhaden is not a good solution. Low population of striped
bass means that fewer predator of the menhaden. However, it is also influence
other fish that are up in the food chain. This counters the reading passage's
claim that preventing striped bass can solve the menhaden's low population.
|