Protection of Frogs Population

Both the presented passage and lecture discusses about the potential measures to reduce the decreasing population of frog. Whilst the author suggests three specific measures for preventing its population decrease, the lecturer challenges the propositions made by the author. In her opinion, the marked preventive measures will not be efficacious for several reasons which will be discussed in the detail in following paragraphs.
The author, in the reading, begins by mentioning that diverse range of pesticides, a chemical employed in the field against the threat of insects, used directly threatens the nervous system of the frog resulting in the breathing problem. Thus, farmers must reduce the usage of such pesticides. The speaker, however, refutes the claim made by the author arguing that farmers are highly dependent on the application of such pesticides to increase the crop yield. As a result, if they are bound to strict rules such as reduction in application of pesticides to save frogs, it will certainly hamper the crop production percentage impacting the farmers of the particular area.
The writer further asserts that the fungus, who are responsible to cause skin thickening prohibiting the frog to absorb water resulting in dehydration of the frogs, can be treated in large scale with the proven heat treatment. The lecturer questions the authors position by stating that the implementation of the large scale treatment is not pragmatic: not only each of the frog must be treated separately, but also the each generations of the frogs must be treated one by one which seems to be quite arduous task.
The reading article posits that natural habitat of the frogs—water and wetland habits, where they lay eggs, must be conserved from the considerable development and water usage. As opposed to the article’s opinion, the lecturer maintains that although the natural habitats of the frogs are of paramount importance, the excessive water use and development is not the primary cause for their destruction. Rather the current situation of the global warming is responsible for this.
To summarize, it is evident that the writer and speaker holds the opposition position in the possible protection measures to be adopted for frogs’ population. On this topic, it will be hard for both of them on finding common ground.