答案

The reading and the listening both discuss iron fertilization. However, what the listening states is quite different from the main ideas in the reading. First, in the reading, it is said that iron fertilization is not efficient in experiment for only few carbon dioxides could be absorbed. Nevertheless, the speaker shows the opinion that the experiment is too short, only for 1 month; actually, at the second and third month, the absorption of carbon dioxide will gradually increase. Most of CO2 are consumed in the last month which cannot be observed in the short experiment. This directly contradicts what the passage indicates. Second, the author of the reading asserts that iron fertilization does harm to local fish industry and human, but the professor considers that such problem is not as serious as it seems to be, since only limited areas will generate these toxic materials. Thus, stopping using this method in those areas can solve such problem. This is another part where the listening contravenes the reading passage. Third, in the lecture, the speaker argues that the global warming’s risk is greater than regional ocean’s bio-system risk. So it is better to concern more about global warming than to pay attention to ocean’s biological system damage, which rejects the point in the reading. (213 words)