【正文】 in support of her claim that substituting them for internalbustion engines is technologically unfeasible, environmentally unfriendly, and economically unviable. First, the lecturer states that it is impractical to replace internalbustion engines with fuelcell engines because using the latter requires hydrogen in a pure liquid form, which is technologically challenging to both obtain and store. However, the reading argues that because hydrogen can be extracted from many resources including water, fuel cell engines powered by this infinite source of energy is an extremely attractive alternative. Second, the lecturer refutes the claim in the reading that hydrogen cells are environmentally friendly. She argues that although engines that use hydrogen cells produce less pollution, the manufacturing of hydrogen cells generates large amounts of harmful byproducts due to the burning of fossil fuels in the purification process. Third, although the reading suggests that hydrogenbased engines are more fuelefficient and thus economically petitive than internalbustion engines, the professor argues that such an advantage is undermined by the fact that fuelcell engines are extremely expensive to manufacture because they require the addition of platinum, a very rare and expensive material. TPO 10： The lecturer and the reading passage suggest two peting theories, the predation theory vs. the pollution theory, to explain why the sea otter population is in rapid decline. The professor reasons that the absence of dead sea otters washed up the coast suggests that their decline is not caused by sea pollution but rather by sea predators who consume their bodies after Killing them. In contrast, the reading passage attributes the death of sea otters to pollution, citing evidence of increased sources of ocean contaminants which lead to greater vulnerability to infections. Furthermore, the lecturer argues that orcas are likely factors in the disappearance of sea otters, because the scarcity of whales, their usual prey, has left them with no other choice but to start hunting smaller mammals like the otters for food. The reading passage, on the other hand, Rules out this theory based on the orca39。s preying habit, and instead approves of the pollution theory as the only explanation for the decline op both large and small sea mammals across the entire ecosystem. Finally, according to the lecturer, the uneven pattern of sea otter decline corresponds to the distribution of the orcas. she argues that the pact that their population has declined most rapidly where orcas are most prevalent further validates the predation theory. However, the reading passage argues that changeable environmental factors, which lead to different concentrations of pollutants, better explains the varying pattern of sea otter decline. TPO 11： The lecturer raises several arguments to counter the reading passage39。s strong criticism of the public39。s declining interest in reading literature. The lecturer argues that literature is only one among many forms of reading genres from which the public can benefit intellectually. The public also benefits from reading works of science fiction and historical novels, among other reading genres. Therefore, the reading is wrong to claim that the public is suffering great losses by not reading literature. Furthermore, the lecturer explains that even if it is true that the public is reading fewer books and watching more television and films instead, it does not necessarily mean that culture is in decline. Television and film are simply modern forms of cultural expression that are also intellectually stimulating and directly relevant to contemporary life. Finally, the lecturer admits a decline in audience and support of literature in today39。s society, but she attributes it to the authors themselves, who have alienated themselves from the reading public by using overly plex language. The reading, however, blames the lowering standards of the public for the declining interest in reading great works of literature. TPO 12： The reading passage suggests that three pieces of evidence provide support that a portrait recently missioned for sale by a member of Jane Austen39。s family is of Jane Austen herself when she was a teenager. However, the lecturer rejects such evidence and argues that the painting could not be a portrait of Jane Austen. First, the lecturer argues that the portrait was approved for publication by the Austen family 70 years after Jane Austen39。s death, suggesting that members of her extended family might have published the portrait without having actually seen her in person. Therefore. the fact that the portrait had been endorsed by her family members does not necessarily prove that it is a portrait of Jane Austen. Second, the lecturer argues that the resemblance between the portrait and an authentic sketch of the adult Jane Austen could be explained by the hypothesis that the