▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage contends that GleanCanyon should not be brought down. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument.
First the speaker argues that if valley's environment condition increased after eliminating reservoir, they would be able to intrigue more tourist.
This casts doubt on the reading which states that Since powell lake is a main source of income, many people come this place to fish and aboard a cruise if powell lake is eliminated, income would decreased.
Second, according the lecturer, since this place is not good, water in reservoir easily is evaporated.
What's more since there is a river nearby, it would be more good source of water , if they built reservoir to the other place.
This refutes the reading passage's assertion that since it is the main source of water resources, if it is eliminated, it would cause of water shortages.
The final point made by the lecturer is that not eliminating reservoir more threaten wild-animal species. This is because this reservoir is highly damaged. ( because of the tourist who come to the reservoir every year, the reservoir is highly damaged. therefore pollution of the reservoir has more negative impact on fish than others do. )This counters the writer's claim that if reservoir is removed, it would threaten wild animals. for example, although now days a distribution rate of carnivorous is concentrated on one region , if a reservoir is eliminated, a carnivorous would distribute to live and it makes endangered species to expose to their predators. (a lot of fish in a reservoir go to downstream, fish living in a reservoir are threatened.) |