In the reading passage, the author claims that there are three ways that can prevent the decline of the frogs. However, the professor in the listening states that none of these are practical solutions to the problem of declining population of frogs. 

To begin with, the reading passage states that if the government passes law that regulate the use of pesticide, the decline of frog population can be stopped. On the contrary, the listening indicates that using pesticide is of great economical importance. It is economical impractical to prohibit the use of pesticide. The farmers who are forbidden to use the pesticide experience decline in their yield of crops, and lose more crops than usual. 

Moreover, the reading believes that applying the treatment of fungus to large scales can prevent the decline also. By contrast, the listening proclaims that the treatment is used to cure individuals, so using this method requires people to capture all the frogs and treat them. Moreover, the disease can be passed on to the next generation of the frogs. So the professor restates that this method is complicated and expensive.

Finally, the reading says that protecting the water habitat from the human activities can save the frogs population. While the professor in the listening claims that eliminating excessive water use will not stop the disappearance of frogs' habitat. The main reason for losing the water habitat is global warming. As global warming rises the temperature, the water in the habitats are drying. So prohibiting excessive water use will not solve the problem of frog extinction as the habitat will continue disappearing.