▶ Your Answer :
In the lecture, the speaker contends that
several theories advanced by scientists to explain the existence of the will o’
the wisp are not convincing. This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that the
phenomenon known as will o’ the wisp can be explained by three hypotheses.
To begin with, the lecturer maintains that a
chemical reaction cannot be a cause of the lights. The faint glow that is
produced when the gas from the rotting materials on the ground mingles with
other gases in the air does not resemble the lights in the will o’ the wisp. The
faint from chemical illumination is cool and greenish, but the lights in the will
o’ the wisp is yellow and warm. This counters the reading passage’s claim that
the chemical illumination can explain the weird phenomenon of glowing lights in
wetlands.
Second, the lecturer points out that the
hypothesis that flying insects might be the sources of the lights is not
viable. It is true that fireflies emit radiation, but they usually spread out
across the large area. However, the eerie glowing lights mainly do not spread
out. Also, the glimmering abdomens of flying insects are sometimes blinking,
but the will o’ the wisp occur without blinking. This cast doubts on the
reading passage’s claim that the fireflies are the reason of the superficial lights
in the marshy wetland.
Lastly, the lecturer claims that the barn
owls are not to be blame for the anomalous lights. Although barn owls’ feathers
have some lights bouncing off, but the lights are not bright enough to explain
the weird phenomenon. And barn owls’ lights look nothing like the will o’ the
wisp, because barn owls’ lights float over the water. This opposes the reading
passage’s claim that barn owls’ reflective white plumage makes the glowing
lights appear to hover over wetlands.
|