▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer questions the claim in the reading on why we Prairie dogs should be limited by presenting a few refuting aspects. According to the lecture, other evidences would prove that Prairie dogs are not harmful to us, unlike what the reading argues.
Most of all, the lecturer maintains that Prarie dogs are not likely to damage the land. In fact, Prarie dogs are making land stable rather than harming the land, making burrows to help soil of ground not to be washed away when it is raining. However, the reading describes that prairie dogs are making land to lose the nutritions, digging holes.
Another problem that the lecturer talks about is that Prarie dogs do not infect people with the disease. Actually, the animals spreading the diseases are mostly rats. Not only that, prairie dogs are good at avoiding human beings, which means that they are not likely to carry the diseases. This counters the arguments in the reading that prairie dogs are harming people since they are vulnerable to plague and easily to affect people.
Finally, the lecturer asserts that prairie dogs do harm to people who have livestock, rather than helping them. Based on the reading, since prairie dogs are eating the vegetation for livestock, it makes ranchers cost more money to purchase food. On the contrary, the lecturer presents that prairie dogs are helpful with making grassland to be nutritious. This means most of the ranchers would like prairie dogs to come to their grasslands.
In conclusion, the lecturer contends that the three arguments given in the reading are not convincing since prairie dogs are beneficial to us. |