TPO 17 – task 1

In these set of materials, the reading claims that the growth of human population and the corresponding growth in agriculture have caused harm to the wildlife in the united states- birds in particular. And he provides three reasons of support. However the professor disagrees with the passage. She states that the arguments in the reading are unconvincing. And she refutes each of the author’s reason.

First. The reading posits that expanding of human population and settlement will cause natural habitats to disappear. However, the professor disagrees with this point. She says that even though it is true that settlements cause harm to some birds’ species but on the other hand it will create a good habitat other species, and it will make its population grows. Since recently suburban and city dwellers have complained about the increased number of falcon, seagull, and many other types of birds.

Second, the reading avers that a growing in the population have caused more wilderness to be convert to agricultural area. That caused a further destruction to birds’ habitat. And made their population to decline even more. Conversely, the professor refutes this idea. She mentions that it’s true that agriculture will increase in the future but not in the way assumed by the author. In fact, more types of crops will be planted in the land unit and consequently more lands will be preserved.

Third, the author states that the increased agriculture will increase the use of pesticide, as a result, poison will inter the birds’ food cycle. And more birds will die. On the other hand the professor refutes this point by saying that pest resistant crops are being developed genetically. And less toxic pesticide will be used. So no extra harm will inter the birds’ food cycle.