The lecturer claims that there are various advantages of prescribed fire, yet the reading passage declares the opposite. The professor gives several reasons why prescribed fire is beneficial.
First, in contrast to the claim that prescribed fires are difficult to control, the professor says that park rangers are capable of handling them. He also claims that they can control where the fire occurs and what it burns, which can be consulted by specialized experts and acted by effective methods. This is countered by the reading assertion that since fire is unpredictable, it can burn extra places.
Second, the reading states that prescribed fires cost much while commencing and manage them because salaries and equipment costs to process them are paid. It also says that it can cost more when it has to be paid to reign back them after they are being spread to additional spaces. Meanwhile, the professor says that there are many methods to prevent the fires from getting out of control. He also mentions that they are less harmful as ten times as the natural forest fire are, which can damage people by burn their house or kill them
The professor and reading clearly disagree with one another with regards to the harmful effects of prescribed fires in forests.
탬플릿에 맞추어 써보았습니다. 첨삭부탁드립니다. 감사합니다 ^^