First, take three minutes to read this article:
Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs) have been a popular choice for energy-efficient lighting over the past few decades. However, there is a growing debate about whether they should be banned due to various concerns. Supporters of a ban argue that CFLs pose significant environmental and health risks, as well as economic drawbacks.
First, CFLs contain mercury, which is a highly toxic substance that can be harmful to both humans and wildlife. When CFLs break or are improperly disposed of, mercury can be released into the environment, contaminating both the air and local water sources. This contamination poses serious and irreversible health risks, including brain damage and other health issues. According to recent studies, the risk of health problems from mercury exposure is especially high for pregnant women and young children.
Second, while CFLs were the best choice in the past, they have been surpassed by newer lighting technologies such as Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). Newer light bulbs can be used for much longer periods of time before they need to be replaced. In certain cases, they can be used for years longer than CFLs. The longer lifespan of new types of bulbs means they need to be replaced less frequently, leading to less waste and lower long-term costs for consumers.
Finally, CFLs are quickly becoming incompatible with new environmentally-friendly technologies that are often installed in buildings nowadays. In particular, CFLs integrate less efficiently with smart energy systems that are designed to reduce power consumption. Consequently, their continued use limits the potential for energy savings in modern homes and businesses. Banning CFLs would pave the way for wider use of smart lighting technologies which make buildings more energy-efficient.
Next, listen to the following lecture:
You have twenty minutes to answer the following question. You can see to the article as you write your essay. You may not listen to the lecture again.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they oppose specific points made in the reading passage.
To get feedback on your essay, check out our evaluation program.
Sample Response
Here is a sample essay:
The reading and the lecture are both about banning CFL light bulbs. While the reading argues that they should be banned, the lecturer challenges the author’s claims. He does not believe that this technology should be outlawed.
First, the author notes that CFL bulbs contain mercury, which can contaminate the environment if they break or are disposed of improperly. According to the article, this can lead to major health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. The professor, though, challenges this idea. He claims that most areas have recycling programs which ensure that CFL bulbs are properly disposed of. In fact, he notes that since the government funds these programs, there is no cost for residents or businesses.
Next, the author argues that newer technologies, like LEDs, have made CFL bulbs obsolete. The article mentions that since these newer bulbs last much longer, they don’t have to be replaced as often and therefore help consumers save money. In contrast, the professor notes that this argument is flawed. He mentions that not everyone can afford new products, since they are more expensive. He mentions that the lower up-front cost of CFL bulbs makes them an attractive option for people on a tight budget.
Finally, the author points out that CFLs cannot be integrated with environmentally-friendly smart lighting systems that are used in many homes nowadays. The article notes that if CFLs are banned, there will be wider use of these systems. On the other hand, the professor says that there are many homes and businesses which are not equipped with such systems. Moreover, he argues that CFL bulbs are a perfect option for homes that currently have older and lower-tech systems.