In the lecture,
the speaker counters the writing's (writer’s) points that learning how to play music is
waste of money, time, not worth trying
(and worthless) by pointing out following
reasons.
First of all, the
lecturer argues that learning music increases the ability to understand
language and mathematics. By learning music, students will get better imagining (imagination)
or picking abstract things up (ability to understand abstract reasoning = noun – noun agreement),
which is essential part in mathematics and languages
(linguistics). So the lecturer's point challenges
to the writing's viewpoint that learning
music is waste of time.
(You
spelled learning and mathematics wrong. I corrected them. See how they are
spelled again.)
Secondly, the
lecturer counters the writing's argument that learning music is very costly
because students are required to have musical instruments by pointing out
schools can always save money by hiring a volunteer music class teachers or
using a donated musical instruments. As you can see, this contradict (contradicts)
the point that (was) made in (the) reading passage.
Lastly, the
lecturer says that learning how to play music is highly rewarding, because
playing musical instruments can enhance people's quality of life and make
people capable of express(ing) themselves. And
the lecturer also points out that there is always a possibility that (the music lessons uncover the) gifted student who is
not aware that he has a gift. So this refutes the writing's claim that learning
how to play music is not realistic.