- UID
- 515235
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-3-3
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
因为是模仿OG上的范文写的,所以不知道会不会被判抄袭???!!!急急急!! 恩,这篇写的是TPO17
The lecture talks about the influence of the growing population and the increase in agriculture and pesticide use on bird population. In fact, the theory in stated in the passage is very different and somewhat inadequate when compared to what happened for real. The professor gives the following reasons to illustrate her point.
In the first place, the expansion of urban area does not cause uniform decline in all kinds of birds. That is, even though the development of urban area may jeopardize the natural habitat of some birds, more often it provides better and larger habitat for most other kinds of birds such as pigeons, sea eagles and falcons, thus leading to the increasing number of birds. In other words, the size of the bird population doesn't seem to keep decreasing. This directly contradicts what the passage indicates.
In addition, there is a clear decline in the use of land for agriculture in the country. The passage says that more and more wilderness areas will be used for agricultural activities in order to provide enough food for the growing human population. However, the professor holds the perspective that the increase in production is and will be resulted from the introduction of new varieties of highly productive crops and there is no need to take up more lands. Therefore, this is another part where experience contradicts theory.
Furthermore, since people have gradually realized the consequences of using traditional pesticides, there are other ways to get rid of insects without causing any damage to birds. There is a growing trend to use the new much less toxic pesticides or develop more pest-resistant crops. These specially designed crops will decrease the use of toxic traditional pesticides and are not destructive to birds. In other words, birds will not be killed or harm by using the two methods mentioned above.
In conclusion, the point made in the lecture apparently refutes what is presented in the passage. |
|