| ||||||||
| ||||||||
In the lecture, the professor casts doubt on the reading passage's idea that biopolymers are suitable for replacing conventional plastics. The professor asserts that biopolymers have many flaws to be replaced conventional plastics. To begin with, the professor argues that biopolymers can mad at the environment. According to the reading passage, biopolmers have the advantage of biodegradability. In opposition to this argument, the professor says that in the wake of the warm and humid temperature, it might be able to cause more serious results than conventional plastics. On top of that, the professor claims that using renewable sources is not helpful. The reading describes how biopolymers contribute to environment beneficially as producing from natural sources such as potatoes, corn and wheat. On the contrary, the professor states that these renewable products cannot be reached the requirement to manufacture biopolymers. Lastly, the professor rebuts the reading's point that biopolymers are being manufacturing as subsitutes of conventional plastics and have studied to be as sturdy. The professor points out that it is not proven yet and the characteristics of biopolymers: picky sensitivity makes hard to be the replacement. |