The article introduces the topic of a policy called "let it burn." More specifically, the writer discusses this rule gave rise to burn Yellowstone, one of the most significant national park in the United States. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees. In spite of some destruction, she believes that not only this vast fire was not destructive, but also it was utterly creative for remarkable reasons.
In the reading, the author begins by stating that the fires in this area damaged plenty of different plant species, especially the smaller once, and also the flames and smoke injured them. The lecturer, however, disagrees. She implies that as a result of the fires, some new vegetation initiated to grow up. The previous plants were exchanged by the new and smaller once quickly. Therefore, the diversification of the plants enjoyed a sharp increase dramatically.
The author also claims that the indigenous park animals were extremely affected by the fires. Moreover, the food chains disruption was one of the most serious threats which would provide unavailability in essential needs for the animals. Again, the lecturer asserts there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that the annihilation of some species caused to create a chance for evoking the novel once. For instance, the new small plants engendered an excellent habitat for small species like the rabbits.
Another reason why the author claims that this issue imported irrecoverable harms to the environment is because of the improper results in tourist reduction, which they come to watch the national park. The professor is doubtful that this is accurate. She suggests that it is an abnormal factor which does not desire to put into discussion. In fact, this combination does not make any sense since the visitors came back in the park by the next year.
To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting viewpoints about the "let it burn" policy. It is clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on this issue.