According to the professor, moderate alcohol intake, defined as one drink a day for women and two drinks a day for man, provides a number of advantages. These include a better health, a normal weight, and a positive influence on social behavior. This information directly contradicts facts presented in the reading.
First, the lecturer states that moderate drinking has significant health benefits. For example, it decreases the chances of stroke or heart attack by 40 percent. Furthermore, she mentions that drinkers have superior brain functioning and a reduction in dementia compared to abstainers. In contrast, the reading links alcohol intake to heart failure, stroke and brain damage.
Second, the speaker describes how moderate drinking helps people maintain a normal weight because it speeds up the metabolism. In fact, he cites a study involving 37,000 participants that found moderate drinkers had the lowest proportion of the body fat according to their body mass index measurements. On the other hand, the reading specifies that there are more calories per gram in alcohol than in either protein or carbohydrates and this promotes weight gain.
Third, the professor discusses the positive impact moderate alcohol consumption has on social behavior. For example, he mentions that an improved ability to initiate social contacts was the most common reason people gave for consuming alcohol. Moreover, she say that moderate drinkers had higher scores on sociability scales and were more often married. However, the reading stresses alcohol’s negative effects on social behavior, including an increase in both violent and aggressive tendencies.
To sum up, the listening passage outlines the poise effects of moderate drinking, whereas the reading passage provides details regarding the negative impact of drinking in general.
The professor discusses the negative aspects of genetically modified foods. Specifically, she talks about corporate motives, the toxicity of the products, and inadequate safety standards. The information she presents is in direct contrast to facts outlined / points made in the reading.
First, the professor explains that corporations involved in the production of genetically modified foods are in the business for profit, not to help feed the poor. She also states that world hunger is a result of poverty rather than a lack of food. However, according to reading, agri-biotech companies will feed the poor of tomorrow’s world with their new and improved super crops.
Second, the lecturer makes the point that biological engineering of food is contrary to nature and may pose unanticipated health issues. For example, she explains that inserting a foreign gene into a food may generate toxic substances that could prove dangerous. On the other hand, the reading points out that the genetic engineering of food is simply an extension of traditional cross-breeding methods that farmers have used for hundreds of years.
Third, the speaker states that current safety regulations governing genetically modified food are less than adequate. She explains that that food corporations, in reality, setting the standards themselves because they decide which traits of a modified food should be tested. In addition, she thinks that animal testing should be extended and human testing needs to be put into effect. In contrast, the reading gives the impression