The reading passage asserts that the biopolymers are more efficient than traditional plastics; however, the lecturer is skeptical about the passage, by stating that the biopolymers are not appropriate as the replacement for plastics.
First of all, the lecturer argues that the biopolymers do not readily disintegrate. The reading passage explains that since they are easily broken down, they are more environmentally-friendly than the conventional plastics. In opposition to this hypothesis, the lecturer indicates that the disintegration of biopolymers only occurs when certain conditions such as humidity and hot temperatures are present. Furthermore, they are basically the same as other plastics regarding their emission of harmful gases.
Next, the speaker claims that the biopolymers are certainly detrimental to the environment. The article explains that they can be used consistently because they are made up of renewable sources. On the contrary, the lecturer states that it is hard for farmers to grow crops to meet the demand of biopolymers, thus more contribution from farmers is needed. In the process of cultivating crops, they contaminate the environment.
Finally, the professor does not agree with the reading that the attributes of biopolymers allow them to be utilized in numerous situations. However the lecturer points out that the biopolymers are improper for those applications since they are not confirmed and susceptible to heat and moisture. As a result, this fact leads to many restrictions for biopolymers to be an alternative energy.
conclusion?
전체적으로 잘 하신 것 같네요 워낙 다들 잘하시는 통합형 :)
|