The professor and the author hold diverse attitudes toward three methods proposed to solve the problem of declining frog population. The lecture extensively refutes all the arguments mentioned by the reading passage.
  According to the writer, if laws are limited farmers from using pesticides, it will reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs. To rebut this idea, the professor claims that it is not economically practical,, farmers rely on pesticides to stat competitive and decrease crop loss. If they are restricted by the law, they will have disadvantages compared to farmers in other areas, which will lead them to have even less crop yield and lose more crops.
  Second, the passage says that there are several ways to deal with the fungus problems, which will protect sensitive frog from infected by the fungus. While the professor argues that it need to apply to each individual frog,.However, capturing and treating each frog is extreme difficult  . Also, this method does not prevent infect off skin, so people need to do it again and again when new generations of frog come, Thus, it is complicated and expensive.
  Finally, opposing the author's belief that protecting key habitats of frogs such as lakes and marshes from  excessive water using can make many from species recover, the professor contend that the water is not the biggest the threat. The key factor is global warming, it cause many spices of frogs and animals to distinct, Thus, protecting lakes from excessive water using unlikely to prevent declining of frog.