|Thesis 总论点||Prescribed burning has many disadvantages.||The three bad influences mentioned in passage are misleading.|
|Sub-point 1||Prescribed burning is a menace to animals, especially nestling animals.||The time of burning can be planned to avert the breeding season.|
|Sub-point2||It is detrimental to environment by producing smoke and carbon dioxide.||The vegetation can absorb carbon dioxide by photosynthesis.|
|Sub-point 3||It might cause natural fires, increasing the time, money and resources spent.||The original aim of prescribed burning to burn down the branches or dead trees that can lead to forest fire.|
In the lecture, by claiming that the prescribed burning is not as harmful as it is in the reading, the professor refutes the three points mentioned in the passage.
Firstly, the reading holds that the prescribed burning is a menace to animals, especially newborn animals. However, the professor refutes that the time of burning can be planned to avoid the breeding season, so that there will be few young animals and the adult animals can run faster to escape from the fire, what’s more, the burning will not spread so fast, which gives animals enough time to run away.
Secondly, the reading claims that prescribed burning is detrimental to environment by producing smoke and carbon dioxide. The professor disagrees with this by suggesting that the vegetation in the forest can absorb carbon dioxide by photosynthesis, and more vegetation should be planted to enhance that effect.
Finally, in the reading passage, it indicates that prescribed burning might cause natural fires, increasing the time, money and resources spent. In contrast, the professor holds that the original aim of prescribed burning is to burn down the branches or dead trees that can lead to forest fire, after which the aftermath of natural fires will not be so severe.