The professor in the lecture disagrees with the argument in the reading passage and believes
that ethanol is actually a good alternative to gasoline. First, the professor points out that
burning ethanol will not add to global warming which is contrary to the reading where
ethanol burning is blamed for further deteriorating the environment. According to the
professor, although burning ethanol will release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,
the growing process of raw materials such as corn will counteract the increase by absorbing
carbon dioxide as nutrients. As a result, green-house gases can be removed from the air.
Therefore, the claim in the reading that ethanol burning contributes to global warming is
unconvincing. Second, the listening indicates that producing ethanol will not reduce the
amount of food for animals which contradicts the statement in the reading that the usage
of corn will lead to significant loss in animal feeding resources. The professor clarifies that
in fact, ethanol can be produced by using the cell wall substance in corns which animals do
not eat. In this way, corn plants can be used in producing ethanol without compromising animal
food. Thus, the feeding of animals will not be an issue as the reading passage suggests. Third,
the reading exhibits great worry that the price of ethanol will rocket once the government
stops the tax subsidy. Nevertheless the professor argues that ethanol will no longer need
the governmental subsidy once the demand of it grows. As is explained in the listening, the
price of ethanol will be rather competitive as its production increases. According to one study,
if the production of ethanol grows to be three times greater than now, the price per unit will
go down by 40%. Again, the concern in the reading that ethanol will be unaffordable without
governmental support is actually unnecessary. In conclusion, the listening refutes all three
reasons mentioned in the reading, and proves the probability of ethanol replacing gasoline.