TPO20(integrated)

In this sets of material, both the reading passage and the lecture discussed the policy "let it burn", which stated not to suppress natural forest fires. The reading firmly emphasized three cons of this policy, while the lecture repudiated what stated in the reading resting upon fallacious premises and provides three counterclaims proofing that the pros of this policy far outweigh its cons, therefore it could be accounted as a natural part of the ecological cycle.

Firstly, the reading claimed that when this policy has been tested for Yellowstone forest fire, it caused tremendous damage to vegetation. The professor contradicted this point by acknowledging that after the fire in the aforementioned park, plants became more diverse and new plants had the opportunity to colonize there. She provided two examples to illustrate this, one is many shrubs that need open unshaded air for growth, and the second is some certain seeds of plants that require high level of heat.

Secondly, the reading argued that not only the population of plants was declined but also the wildlife of the park was affected as well. Notwithstanding, the lecture highlighted that many animals soon recovered; moreover, the fire created a perfect opportunity for appearing new animals. She pointed out that small plants would create a new habitat for small animals like rabits, consequently it a chance for thriving related predators to increased their population.

Lastly, the article contended that the number of tourists sharply decreased after that fire. This seemed to be incorrect as explained in the reading. The speaker articulated that the condition of the region's climate was unusual at that specific year, and as it would not happen every year, it will not influence on the number of tourists as whole.