▶ Your Answer :
The reading and the lecture both talk about
red rain. The reading says that there are several explanations for the red
rain. However, the lecturer argues that the explanations mentioned in the
reading are not convincing.
Firstly,
the reading states that the red rain contained the blood of bats since a flock
of moving bats was destroyed by natural disaster. On the contrary, the lecturer
disagrees with this statement. The speaker contends that the bat blood theory is
little far-fetched. The amount of blood that would be required to produce the red
rain is that over 5 million bats would have to be died. Moreover, large amounts
of bat remains like wings or bones were not found in Kerala.
Secondly,
in the reading, the author insists that a volcanic eruption in the Philippines
caused the red rain. In contrast, the lecturer makes an opposing point to this
claim. The point is that the volcanic eruption theory has been disproven. The
red rain fell only in Kerala. However, if it had been caused by a Philippine volcano,
the Philippines would have experienced the red rain, too. In addition, the red
rain did not occur in countries between the Philippines and India.
Thirdly, the reading goes on to say that
the red rain resulted from chemical pollution released form local factories. However,
the speaker contradicts this statement, arguing that chemical pollution from local
factories is not the reason for the red rain. There are few factories in that area
of India, so there are not may chemicals emitted into the atmosphere. In addition,
the red rain did not fall in cities with many factories with unfiltered chimneys.
|