The concept of 'de-extinction'—bringing extinct species back to life through genetic engineering—has gained traction among scientists. Proponents argue that it could restore damaged ecosystems, advance scientific knowledge, and rectify past human-caused extinctions. However, a more cautious view suggests that de-extinction is impractical, ethically problematic, and ultimately a distraction from conservation efforts. First, the technology is still inefficient; even if an animal like the woolly mammoth were resurrected, its surrogate mother (an Asian elephant) would face high mortality rates, and the resulting offspring would likely suffer from health issues due to genetic abnormalities. Second, reintroduced species would struggle to survive in modern habitats, which have changed drastically since their extinction. For example, the tundra where mammoths once roamed is now dominated by different vegetation and predators, making adaptation unlikely. Third, the immense cost of de-extinction projects—estimated at millions of dollars per species—would divert funding from protecting endangered species that are still alive, thereby accelerating biodiversity loss.
🎧 听力讲座
🎯 模拟考试环境：先点「播放讲座」听完内容，再作答。听力原文默认隐藏。
The lecture challenges the reading's arguments. Regarding the first point, the professor acknowledges technical challenges but notes that genetic engineering has advanced rapidly; for instance, CRISPR technology has already been used to edit genes in living elephants, and similar techniques could be refined to reduce health risks. Moreover, surrogate pregnancies are not unique to de-extinction—they are common in assisted reproduction for endangered species, and mortality rates can be managed with veterinary care. Second, the professor argues that habitat change is not insurmountable. Ecologists can restore ecosystems by reintroducing keystone species, and de-extinct animals could actually help recreate the environments they once inhabited. For example, mammoths could trample shrubs and fertilize soil, promoting grasslands that support other species. Third, the lecture contends that de-extinction does not necessarily steal funds from conservation; it can generate public interest and private funding that benefits all conservation efforts. The professor cites crowdfunding campaigns and high-profile media attention as evidence that de-extinction projects often raise new money rather than reallocate existing resources.
📝 คำแนะนำการเขียน Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific points made in the reading passage.
📊 TOEFL Integrated Writing Rubric
Content Accuracy: Accurately capture the relationship between lecture and reading
Information Completeness: Cover all key counter-arguments from the lecture
Structure & Coherence: Logical organization and progression
Language Use: Grammar, vocabulary, expression accuracy
Scored 0-30 based on holistic scoring (original 0-5, scaled to 30).
