Tpo 20.

This set of the material in the both reading and lecture is about "let it burn" policy approved in USA since 1960s, which was presumed that forest would burn naturally without creating destruction. The reading provides three pieces of evidence indicating that this policy caused serious damage to the national park in the summer of 1988. The lecture, nontheless, refutes the author's claims by offering three counterclaims.

First, the reading posits that due to the serious fire happned in the famous national park, a wide variety of plant species were destroyed. The lecturer, conversely, takes the view that not only did such scorch contribute to diversification of plant life but it also resulted in producing new species which were unable to bloom since they needed extreme heat. Moreover, plenty of unshaded space also was provided by such incident for new trees.

Second, the reading brings up the idea that when this incident happened, many animals were killed, and others evaded. It also caused serious disturbance in foot web. However, the professor disputes this point by arguing that this fire brought new species to the natural habitat which could be considered as food for new evolved animal species such as herd and rabbits. These animals would be the other predators' food. As you can see, the foos web has been strengthening by introducing new animal and plant species.

Third, the reading casts doubt on this fact that fire destroyed all tourist attraction of this parks, which led to serious depression for local economy. The lecturer casts doubt on this point due to the fact that in the summer of 1988, if both low rainfall and consequently drought did not occur simultaneously with this phenomenon in this park, there would no such economic damage. He also adds that afterwards, the number of tourists have been increasing which would be a compensation for the preveious depression.