Whereas the reading passage's assertion is about why (that) humans
can't colonize Venus, the lecturer points out that just as any problems,
there are always solutions (to the challenges of
colonizing Venus).
To start with, the lecturer says that there is no big
reason why humans should live on the surface of Venus. She asserts that if
humans live on the orbit that 50
killometers high (apart) from the surface of Venus, we can manage to
survive without dealing with heavy air pressure. The lecturer counters the
reading passage's assumption that humans can't migrate to Venus because of the
high air pressure.
Secondly, the lecturer points out that even if there
is no water and oxygen available for human
(man)kind on Venus, we can produce oxygen and
water by using electric technic (charge / technology), which can disintegrate and
formulate carbon dioxide into water and oxygen. The lecturer contradicts the
assertion made in the reading passage that there is no water or molecular
oxygen to support life form.
(For both of the precious paragraphs, I deem
it better to flip the plot back and forth. Introduce the lecturer’s doubt on
human migration to Venus, and then write about the author’s solution to those
challenges as you have written on the introduction.)
Lastly, the lecturer suggests that if human kind
collect heat of the sun by using solar pad. The lecturer also points out that
since Venus' daytime is much longer than earth, it is practically true that
there will be plenty of energy available for humans. This refutes the argument
from the reading passage that thick layer of gas deters human kind to collect
any feasible energy source.