▶ Your Answer :
In the lecture, the professor raises doubts regarding the ideas mentioned in the reading passage about the Everglades. In fact, the lecturer believes that the theories on the reading passage have problems.
To begin with, the lecturer asserts that the explanation about water pollution is wrong. To be specific, the government' new regulation is limiting for farmers to use chemicals. As a result, farmers cannot contain a lot of fertilizers and exploit the fertilizer. In this sense, it is less likely for chemicals from fertilizers to seep into the water, and for resulting algae to destroy wetland ecosystems. This counters the reading passage's claim that sugarcane farms in the Everglades cause water pollution.
Next, the lecturer maintains that the view about soil is unlikely. In particular, many institutions are trying to remedy soil. A project that supports recovering soil has already been ongoing. This project seems very promising. Consequently, dry and weak soil will convert itself to original condition. This refutes the reading passage, states that soil is perishing at brisk pace.
Finally, the lecturer insists that the idea about human development is false. According to the professor, human development did not have a negative effect on wildlife. a 700 square kilometer sugarcane farms changed to wild marshland. There are significantly huge habitats for several animal species. In addition, they can survive there well. This casts doubt on the reading passage's view that human development threatens habitats of several animal species. |