▶ Your Answer : In
the lecture, the professor claims that CFLs have a lot of benefits compared to
original bulbs that we use today. Therefore, he thinks that CFLs should replace
the original bulbs. This contradicts the reading passage which mentioned about
downsides of CFLs.
To
begin with, the professor points out that the amount of the mercury released
out of CFLs are extremely small. The professor does admit that CFLs do contain
some amount of mercury, which is written on the reading passage. However, he
challenges to the reading passage that tiny amount of release does not have
severe drawbacks as passage says.
Moreover,
the professor said that CFLs are more cost-effective than conventional bulbs in
its usage. He also acknowledges the fact that CFLs are more expensive bulbs,
which are mentioned on the article, but he claims that CFLs use only 22~23% of
electricity compared to original bulbs. In addition, the professor says that
CFLs last more than 8 times longer than conventional bulbs. This fact goes
against the article`s assertion that CFLs would bring money problems.
Finally,
in the lecture, it is said that technology has been progressed since CFL`s
first invention. At the beginning, as said in the reading passage, it was true
that CFLs had harsh light which makes people feel tired. However, the professor
asserts that CFLs products produced with better technology make warmer light
than it did before.
|