In this set of materials, the writer and the lecturer cover the issue of Eco-tourism. The reading passage contends that Eco-tourism is beneficial for ecological significance. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument by matching rebutting evidences.
First, the speaker argues that it has less impact than ordinary.
That's because it needs infrastructure which stresses economical development.
This casts doubt on the reading, which states that eco-tourism serves as a substitute for forms of development.
Second, according to the lecturer, protects does not mean ecological. She mentioned that environment can be corrupted.
For example, people can cut the trees illegally more easily and it brings environmental air pollution, cultural pollution. And even we lost custom. This refutes the reading passage's assertion that it preserves this national treasure.
The final point made by the lecturer is that economical side.
The professor said that eco-tourism could make more jobs, but their pay could be less. And also, other people who came from another region can find a job here and it does not mean improve our community's develop. This counters the writer's claim that it helps the area be developed.
The lecturer asserts that eco-tourism is not a perfect solution for develop. |