As far as ethanol fuel is concerned, the lecturer takes a stand that opposed the thesis of the reading passage and presents three counterarguments. Specifically, the lecturer does not sympathize with the reading’s view and argues that ethanol will be able to substitute gasoline as a vital alternate fuel.
l 첫 문장에 lecturer을 주어로 takes a stand ~ and presents ~ 라고 두개의 문장을 이어주기 보다는, 리딩과는 다른 counterarguments를 보여준다. 라고 한문장으로 써도 될 것 같아요. Counterarguments에 이미 반대되는 내용이라는 뜻이 포함되어 있습니다.
In the first place, the lecturer points out that ethanol fuel will not affect global warming. This is because the corn plants, which produce ethanol fuel, remove carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This information directly contradicts the claim in the reading that ethanol fuel emits carbon dioxide that is responsible for global warming.
Secondly, the lecturer goes on to say that animals do not decrease the amount of the corn plant. This is attributed to the fact that the ethanol-making plants contain a stuff called “cellulose” and animals generally do not intake cellulose in the plants. This tarnishes the impact of the reading that animals such as cows and chickens feed on the corn. Thus, the corn, the major resource of ethanol, is going to disappear. (tarnish라는 동사는 의미상 잘 맞지 않습니다. 다른 단어를 선택하는 게 좋을 것 같아요. Reading의 impact라고 쓰는 것도 문장의 흐름상 어색합니다. 수정해주세요.)
Last but not least, the lecturer concludes by saying that ethanol is effective with regard to an aspect of price. When there are more demands for ethanol, purveyors also produce more ethanol and thus, price of ethanol is eventually plummeted. To be specific, a study revealed that the ethanol price will drop by 40 percents if the production increases about 3 times. This point challenges the reading which argues that ethanol would appear more expensive if U.S. government decreases the benefit of tax reduction. |