In the lecture, the speaker claims that the belief that megastores benefit people in various ways is totally a myth, which contradicts the reading passage's opposite view. He refutes that gigantic superstores ruin local economies without any benefits referred by the reading passage.
First off, the lecturer clarifies that the products sold in megastores are not cheaper than those sold in small stores, which contradicts both common belief and the reading passage's assertion. According to the lecturer, the costs of the goods in superstore are actually higher than those in mom & pops. This directly opposes the idea of the reading passage that megastores benefit consumers by providing goods with discounts.
In addition, the lecturer also points out megastores are not convenient as much as people think. He finds out that looking for non main products among tremendous aisles is time-consuming and inefficient. Furthermore, the existence of the gigantic superstores virtually blocks people from purchasing goods out of itself, because it often makes other small stores close their doors. This casts doubts on the reading passage's discuss that megastores help people to find the wanted products easily.
Lastly, the lecturer criticizes the reading passage's concern that megastores provoke local economy. Instead, he blames megastores on ruining local economy. Though the reading passage takes the job positions by huge malls as good sign for the economy, the lecturer points out that they do not provide the good qualities of the jobs. For example, most of job openings in megastores are low-paying and part-time which means no insurance for the job conditions. To make it worse, the lecturer also mentions that megastores are likely to sweep out other options for working because they force other small store to give up their business. |