TPO48

The writer and the professor have a debeat on the solutions to prevent the population declining of frogs. The author proposes three solutions including prohibiting pesticides, preventing fungus infection, and protecing habitat by stopping excessive water use. The professor, however, argues that none of these solutions are pragmatic.

To begin with, as opposed to the first solution that proposed by the writer regarding prohibit pesticides usage near sensitive frog populations, the professor contend that the regulation on pesticides in specific area is not economic fair to some farmers. In detail, for the farmers near frog populations, their crops's quality is definitely inferior to those from other areas, which will result in the lose of clients for these framers.

Second, the writer's second solution is prevent infection by antifungal medication or kill fungus. In contrast, the professor holds that this solution is also not practical beacuse this process is difficult and expensive. Specifically, this treatment can only be used on individual frogs, and thus it is onerous to cover a large population of frogs. Besides, even if we accomplish all the process on every frogs, it will not work on their springs. As a result, we are supposed to do such things again and again.

Third, The writer's third solution is protect frogs' habitat by stop excessively waste water since the main threate of the habitat is the human activity about water. But the professor holds that it doesn't hold water. In detail, the professor believes that the main cause of the reduction of population is due to the global warming instead of humans' use of water. Therefore, simply reduce the development of water resource will not help protect frogs' habitat.

In conclusion, the professor thinks that the author's solutions are not effective.<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script><script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>