综合写作作业

zhisnoopyUID: 2703722

3.6 TPO14

In this analysis, the lecturer entirely denies the points made in the reading, she advocates that the disadvantages of salvage logging are far outweigh the advantages, which challenges what are stated in the reading.

For the first place, according to the article, the writer expresses that salvage logging makes rooms for new trees, which is going to help forest area to recover from disaster. In the contrast, the lecturer’s perspective cast doubts on the writer’s points, she says that remove the dead trees from the forest it totally unnecessary, because the dead trees create conditions for new ones, and make the whole environment more suitable for future, which also provides nutrients for the new growth.

Furthermore, contrary to the standpoints in the reading that decaying wood provides suitable place for insects, which could damage live or health trees. The lecturer in the listening reveals that the insects may also be helpful, actually some of these insects have already exist for nearly 100 years without causing any major damages. What’s more, those dead trees provide place for birds or other species, who are the contributor to the long term health of the forest. So the salvage logging may do more harmful to the forest than insects do.

Finally, the lecturer opposes the author’s expectation by emphasizing that the economic benefits made by salvage logging are really small and not last long and some lumber from this can only be used limited, in addition, the jobs provided by salvage logging are temporary. On the contrary, about the same issue, the writer insists that the trees are still usable, and salvage logging creates additional jobs for local residents.

To sum up, all the three evidences of the lecture illustrate that the professor disagree with the statements mentioned in the reading.

zhisnoopyUID: 2703722

TPO13 是很久以前写的，也发上来看看吧~~~
In this analysis, the lecturer entirely denies the points made in the reading, she advocates that the benefits of commercial sale of fossils are far outweigh the disadvantages, which challenges what are stated in the reading.

For the first place, according to the article, the writer expresses that selling fossils to private collectors makes it harder for public to see fossils, which accounts for a decline in public interest in fossils. In the contrast, the lecturer’s perspective cast doubts on the writer’s points, she says the private collectors provides more exposures to the fossils instead of less, most of the fossils that collected by universities and museums are also not presented to the public.

Furthermore, contrary to the standpoints in the reading that scientists are going to lose access to some valuable fossil, which leads to miss out possible vital discoveries, the lecturer in the listening reveals that before the collectors get the fossils, the fossils still need to be identified by scientists, or passed through the hands of scientists, which made all the misses impossible. And her statements conflicts the context.

Finally, the lecturer opposes the author’s expectation by emphasizing that all the procedures are still finished by professors and scientists, consequently, it is impossible for them to miss or destroy some valuable evidences. On the contrary, about the same issue, the writer insists that those unprofessional collectors are going to damage some valuable evidences. The writer even persuades us with a vivid example about how fossils lie in the ground or the some important small fossils around the bigger ones.

To sum up, all the three evidences of the lecture illustrate that the professor disagree with the statements mentioned in the reading.