TPO 48

The lecturer and the listener discuss frog populations that are decline, and it makes several serious consequences problems for the ecosystems. Although the reading passage provides three theories for preventing the extinction of the frog population, the speaker refutes these ideas for several reasons, which I will describe in this report.

First, the passage points out that using pesticides for protecting trees would entire the frog's body and attack the nervous systems, leading to severe breathing problems for them, so the government must prohibit the farmers from using pesticides. The lecturer, in contrast, rejects this by claiming that this solution is not practical. Because reducing the use of pesticide is not economical for farmers who must follow restricted rules for using pesticides. Farmers need to stay in the market and sell their products; hence, if they do not use the pesticide for protects their crops, they would produce fewer corns and suffer from problems in the market and their life.

Furthermore, the passage states that some fungus attack the frogs and absorb water from the skin and, they died of dehydration, so treatment of the frogs could protect them. However, the professor argues that the treat each frog is not practical. Frogs should treat individually; also, by treating frogs new generation will not protect. Hence, for offspring treat must be repeated. Thus, using this method is almost impossible.

Finally, although the passage says that protecting key water habitats from excessive water use and development could help frog species to recover, the speaker disagrees by mentioning that the real threat to wetland habitats is Global Warming which is drying out all of the lakes and marshes. Consequently, prohibiting humans from using water sources would not have any effects on the main problem of the water lands.