| |||||
| |||||
In the given set of materials, the reading passage and the lecture deal with three possible disadvantages of Prairie dogs whether they should be exterminated due to their's harm. The reading is providing three pieces of evidence to prove its point, whereas the lecturer argues against it by articulating three compelling rebuttals. Firstly, the reading passage asserts the idea that the holes which are dig by prairie dogs do harm the area. However, the professor cast doubts because these holes have positive effect on preventing the surrounding area from erosion or soil's missing, he claims that the action of digging by prairie dogs makes the land more stable, they make soil to be so porous that rain with run over the land can penetrate ground easily. Furthermore, its advantages also beneficial for decreasing the chance of erosions. Secondly, the reading passage claims that prairie dogs can bring people contagion disease like bubonic plague. The professor refutes the idea that it is unlikely because these diseases are caused by rodents like rats. What's more, he added that prairie dogs are able to avoid people in effect, hence physical contact with people will happen in reality. Finally, The reading points out that food of livestock like grasses are negatively affected by prairie dogs because they eat their livestock's nutritional foods. The professor challenged the idea because prairie dogs do not eat their supply. and it is also proved that the value of prairie dog's presence also can be helpful for ranchers's livestock by the fact that prairie dog's foods are not same as its of livestock. Put it differently, there is no suprise if prairie dogs make their living with the livestock. |