Whether people should carry out regulations to prevent frog numbers from decreasing

Whether the methods in the writing are capable to prevent frog numbers decline is the focus of the writer and the professor, in three aspects, including using fewer pesticides, treatment of fungus and better wetland habitats have been elaborated. The professor, however, states that every method in the writing is not practical.

As opposed to the writer’s idea that framers should use fewer pesticides to prevent frog species from dying, the professor states that if farmers don’t use pesticides with strict regulation, it is not fair for themselves. She advances the theory by saying that once farmers stop using pesticides, it would cause the loss of crops, and they will become less competitive than other areas.

The professor continues to discredit the writer’s assertion that people have found several methods to prevent frogs from being infected by the fungus, she examining the fact that it’s very difficult and expensive for us to do that. In detail, she points out that these treatments can’t prevent frogs from being infected again. Although frogs get treatments, it is possible that the fungus may exist in their offspring, and the cost of treatment is so expensive.

It is the professor’s third argument that global warming is the main reason why the frog numbers constantly, instead of human activities, which contradict the view of the writer that people should build better wetland for frog species to protect them. To explore it further, she contends that global warming is the main course of frog species decline, although human activities can cause some trouble for the number of frogs.

Therefore, these methods to protect frog species in the writing are not convincing.