TPO17
写的太晚了,唉,我这拖延症什么时候才能才能才能克服呢、、。。。。。。data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ca7ad/ca7ad86a22137448dfa833d4568f524e32ab7a58" alt=""
The reading passage explores the issue of the numbers of birds in America. The professor deals with the same topic. However, she thinks that the numbers of birds will not decrease in the future, which contradicts what the reading passage states. And in the lecture, she uses three specific points to butress her idea.
First, even though the reading passage suggests that due to expansion of human populations and settlements, the natural habitats of birds will inevitably diminish, the professor argues in the lecture that as urban development, the space birds can live is becoming larger and better. Because cities can still be the home of some birds. And what results is only the numbers of some kinds of birds diminish while other numbers expand. Moreover, despite the statement in the reading that the need of agricultural lands accelerate the disapperance of bird's habitats, the professor contends that although it is true that more people needs more crops, increasing the agricultural lands is not the only way to solve the problem. And now, we have new kind of crops, which could create more crops within the same land as usual. The more productive crop is the future. Finally, the professor asserts that the wide use of chemical pesticides plays a main role in the decreasing of birds. Whereas the author of the reading claims that it has passed when people were not aware of the harms of chemical pesticides towards nature. Therefore, now, some new kinds of chemical pesticides are birthed in order to lessen the negative influence to animals and birdS. Besides, humans start to grow pesticide-resistant crops, which is more attractive to people and no any harms to birds. In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the flaws in the reading passage and convincingly shows that the central argument in the reading is incorrect.
|