▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage and lecture hold different positions
respectively, on the issue of a forest restoration program which eliminates all
dead trees after forest fires. The lecture's argument is formed around many
points that are in direct contrast to the materials in the reading passage.
First off, the reading passage suggests that people can
offer spaces for living trees to grow and thrive by eliminating dead trees in
the fire zone. However, the lecture rebuts this point by claiming that the
truth is that rotting trees are beneficial for a new group of trees that survived
forest fire. This is because dead trees enrich the soil with nutrients with
which new plants can prosper.
Also, the reading passage argues that the program
benefits forest because it drives away harmful insects by removing rotting
trees. On the other hand, the lecture refutes this point by claiming that these
insects have a positive influence on living trees. The reason is that the
insects attract birds which feed on them. The birds eat plant seeds also, and
spread them thereby helping new plants to grow.
Lastly, the reading passage claims that one of benefits
the program generates is that it creates new jobs. That is, the intervention
positively affects not only forests but also economy. In contrast, the lecture
counters this point by suggesting that this is only temporary effects on
economy since job positions related to the program are mostly consist of labor
workers, who are employed by construction companies. These companies usually
have other works without the restoration program. Also, if the damage
given on forest is severe, experts are required, not daily construction
workers.
In conclusion, the reading passage presents three aspects
with regard to the issue of the deadtree elimination program. However, the lecture's
argument makes it clear that none of these points justifies the reading
passage's claim.
|