▶ Your Answer :
While the author of the reading passage
argues that there are three negative effects on introducing wolves into the
wild, the lecturer opposes the reading’s assertion with counter views.
First of all, the speaker contends that the
claim relating to disrupting the balance of the ecosystem by slaughtering elks
seems flawed, because there are the great number of the preys in the forest. To
explain, the numerous herbivorous animals eat a large amount of grass which is
food for other plant-eating ones including sheep. Thus, it is necessary for the
predators to reduce the population of the elk. This contradicts the reading
passage’s argument that reintroducing wolves would disorder the equilibrium of
the food chain.
Additionally, the professor mentions that
the opinion about an adverse influence on ranchers’ livelihood looks baseless,
since the local government can subsidize shepherds when their livestock are
killed by wolves. To be more specific, compensating for the loss of the sheep,
the government can minimize the damage of the local economy. This casts doubt
on the point of the reading that when the predatory beasts return to the
environment, the economic situation of a local region will be severely harmed.
Finally, the debater maintains that the
suggestion concerning wolves’ attacks against humans appears exaggerated, owing
to the fact the carnivores do not always try to assault them. In detail, a wolf
howls loudly to warn people when they encroach its territory. This means that people can avoid a raid from a pack of wolves, on condition that they get out of the place immediately. In this regard, it is biased
that the predatory animals are dangerous for people at all times. This goes
against the idea presented in the article that the wolf is harmful to a human
being due to its aggressive character as a fearful hunter. |