The reading passage casts light on the whether the environmental pollutionor attacks by predators have the more possibilities that lead to the decline ofsea otter population. The professor covers the same topic, however, with a totallyopposite attitude. According to the professor, decline of sea otter populationsare more likely caused by being attacked by predators. Likewise, the professor utilizes three distinctivepoints to justify his perspectives.
First and foremost, theprofessor refutes the idea in the reading passage that the industrial chemicalstested in the water samples could contribute to the otters' death. On thecontrary, the professor contends that we cannot make this conclusion because nodead otters were found on the beaches. To be specific, if the otters were killed by pollution, they should bevisible in the beaches. While, thephenomenon can be explained by predators attack theory. Evidently, theprofessor's idea is incompatible with the reading passage.
Moreover, as well defined as the point made in thereading, the professor once again contradicts with the reading by assertingthat the because of the human hunters, otters' predators have to change theirdiet. Without enough large animals toeat, they will turn to small animals. That's why smallanimals are also declining. Having taken the human’s intervention intoconsideration, the professor doubts the correctness of the reading passage. In addition, the reading passage points out that unevenpattern of otter decline are induced by the different population distribution.The professor challenges the final down. He asserts that some locations are notaccessible to their predators. As a result, otters in those places do not showa decline. Clearly, the credibility of the conception in the reading begins toshrink when thinking about the characteristic of both otters and theirpredators pinpointed by the professor. To sum up, the professor precisely discerns the drawbacksof the reading and convincingly reveals that the fundamental argument in thereading needs to be reexamined with close scrutiny. |