| |
| |
|
In the reading, there is ample support to the author's claim that prairie dogs should be excluded because they offer a lot of negative effect on people. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's claim.
To begin with, the lecturer argues that the animals do not harm the lands. To explain specifically, they actually prevent the problems that are related to soil. Since, when they dig, the soil becomes looser so it allows the water can penetrate through the soil easily. Thus, soil erosion is less likely to occur. This opposes the reading passage's claim that the organisms give several hardships on the land with burrow.
On top of that, the professor points out that it is unlikely that the prairie dogs disperse a deadly disease. For example, a statistic shows that other rotten such as rat actually deliver the sickness. Also, they are not going to contact with humans because they are good at avoiding people. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that the animals spread out an illness such as bubonic disease.
Finally, the lecturer asserts that the organism does not negatively effect on the food available for livestock. To be specific, the grass or plant which is eaten by prairie dog indicates that it has plenty of nutrition. So, ranchers like the area that is inhabited by the prairie dog because of a high level of nutrition. This refutes the reading passage's claim that prairie dogs give a bad impact on the livestock's subsistence as they consume most graze.