TPO22(integrated)-edited

In this set of materials, both the reading passage and the lecture discussed the replacement of gasoline with ethanol. The reading passage firmly criticize this replacement, however the lecture repudiated what stated in the reading resting upon fallacious premises and provides three counterclaims proofing that ethanol is an excellent alternative to be used instead of gasoline.

Firstly, the reading argued that if we started to use ethanol largely, we would cause more environmental problems, as one of the emissions of ethanol combustion is carbon dioxide which is in fact one of the greenhouses; therefore, we would trap more heat in the atmosphere. The professor contradicted this point by acknowledging that as ethanol is being produced by corns, so if we want to produce more of that fuel we would have to harvest more corn plants consequently, the corns plants would use more case carbon dioxide from air as one sources of their nutrition.

Secondly, the article claimed that if we used corns for producing ethanol fuel, there would be a dramatic decrease of the amount of plants available for other uses like feeding farm animals. Notwithstanding the professor highlighted that, in the process of ethanol production some parts of the corn plant that are not eaten by animals like caws and chicken are being used, so this two procedure will not interfere each other at all.

Lastly, the reading contended that usage of ethanol is not economically convincing if the government stops subsidizing this fuel. This seemed to be incorrect as explained in the lecture. The speaker articulated that in near future the demand for ethanol fuel will rise, so that factories would have to increase their production; consequently even if the government stops its taxes, the price of ethanol fuel would decrease to a high extent.