Q1. Altruism in animals
The lecture and reading passage present divergent perspectives on [altruism in animals]. The speaker rebuts key assertion made in the reading passage, undermining its credibility, and proposing alternative interpretations.
The reading passage asserts that [altruism in animals is a result of kin selection], supported by [examples of bees and ground squirrels]. Nonetheless, the lecturer refutes this assertion by indicating that [kin selection cannot explain altruism in unrelated individuals], based on [studies of vampire bats and monkeys].
* kin selection: a process whereby natural selection favours a trait due to its positive effects on the reproductive success of an organism's relatives
Additionally, the lecture conveys a perspective that opposes the reading’s assertion on [reciprocal altruism]. While the reading affirms that [reciprocal altruism is a long-term strategy that requires repeated interactions and memory], the speaker accentuates that [reciprocal altruism can also occur in short-term situations without memory], exemplifying [cleaner fish and their clients].
Furthermore, the lecture examines [group selection], directly contravening the reading’s view on this issue. The reading maintains that [group selection is implausible and unsupported by evidence], whereas the lecturer repudiates this claim, corroborated by [experiments on chickens and bacteria].
These discrepancies unveil the complexities of the topic and suggest that [altruism in animals] may not be as [simple] as initially presented in the reading. And the contradiction between the two sources underscores the need for a more balanced and critical evaluation of [altruism in animals].
Q1. Organic food
The lecture and reading passage present divergent perspectives on [organic food]. The speaker rebuts key assertion made in the reading passage, undermining its credibility, and proposing alternative interpretations.
The reading passage asserts that [organic food is healthier than conventional food], supported by [claims of higher nutrient levels and lower pesticide residues]. Nonetheless, the lecturer refutes this assertion by indicating that [nutrient levels vary depending on soil quality and crop variety, not farming method, and that pesticide residues are within safe limits for both types of food.]
Additionally, the lecture conveys a perspective that opposes the reading’s assertion on [environmental benefits of organic farming]. While the reading affirms that [organic farming reduces soil erosion and water pollution], the speaker accentuates that [organic farming also has negative impacts, such as lower yields and higher land use.]
Furthermore, the lecture examines [animal welfare], directly contravening the reading’s view on this issue. The reading maintains that [organic farming provides better living conditions for animals], whereas the lecturer repudiates this claim, corroborated by evidence of [higher mortality rates and disease outbreaks among organic livestock].
These discrepancies unveil the complexities of the topic and suggest that [organic food] may not be as [superior] as initially presented in the reading. And the contradiction between the two sources underscores the need for a more balanced and critical evaluation of [organic food].
Q1. The impact of social media on society
The lecture and the reading passage present divergent perspectives on [the impact of social media on society]. The speaker rebuts key assertions made in the reading passage, undermining its credibillity, and proposing alternative interpretations.
The reading passage asserts that [social media has a positive impact on society], supported by examples of [increased connectivity and civic engagement]. Nonetheless, the lecturer refutes this assertion by indicating that [social media also have negative effets, such as cyberbullying and echo chambers], based on [studies of teenager and political polarization].
Additionally, the lecture conveys a perspective that opposes the reading's assertion on [the role of social media in political activism]. While the reading affirms that [social media has empowered marginalized groubs and facilitated social movements], the speaker accentuates that [social media can also be used to spread misinformaion and propaganda], exemplifying [Russian interference in US elections and anti-vaccine campaigns].
Furthermore, the lecture examines [the psychological effects of social media], directly contravening the reading's view on this issue. The reading maintains that [social media enhances well-being and reduces loneliness], whereas the lecturer repudiates this claim, corroborated by [evidence of addiction and depression among heany users of social media].
These discrepancies unveil the complexities of the topic and suggest that [social media] may not be as [beneficial] as initially presented in the reading. And the contradiction between the two sources underscores the need for a more balanced and critical evaluation of [the impact of social meid on society].