The reading states that several methods have been proposed to solve the problem of declining frog populations and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that these methods are not a practical solution and refutes each of the authors ' reasons. First, the reading states that if laws laws prohibited the farmers from using harmful pesticides, it would significiantly reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs. The professor opposes this point by saying that this is not an economical and practical solution. The professor points out that stop using pesticides that will make farmers lose a lot of crops. The professor adds that will cause a huge disadvantage to farmers by reducing their yeilds and cannot help them to compete with other farmers who they use …show more content…
The professor counters this point by saying that there are two problems with this point. First, the professor states that each frog should be treated individually with antifungal. The professor adds that doing this process on a large scale will be difficult because people should capture and treat frogs individually. Second, the professor adds that frogs ' offspring also should be treated with antifungal again and again. Therefore, the professor states that each new generation should be treated and that 's a complicated and expensive process. Third, the reading states that if water habitats were better protected from excessive water use, many frogs species would recover. The professor refutes this point by saying that this method will not save frogs ' populations. The professor points out that global warming is the biggest problem that caused a decline in frogs ' population, not the water loss. The professor explains that a lot of species were extinct because of water loss. And, stop using of lakes and marshes water will not prevent the global warming because they did not cause global