Paragraph 2
First, the lecturer states that removing dead trees is not good for the health of a forest because it deprives it of nutrients necessary for future tree growth, which dead trees release into the soil as they decompose. In contrast, the reading passage states that removing old trees provides more space in which new generations of fresh trees can grow uninhibited by deadfall.
此段功能：
以 L 的观点为主，L 说移除死树对森林是无益的因为死树腐烂的营养是对未来生长的树非常必要的。相反的 R 却觉得移除死树能迅速空出地方让新树生长，这样无疑会失败。
此段结构：
此段为总分结构。一句陈述 L 的观点和证据，然后表明相反态度后，又陈述了一遍 R 的观点
Paragraph 3
Second, the lecturer argues that some insects and birds that inhabit dead trees are beneficial for tree growth. Some others that are thought to be harmful have shown no evidence of causing significant damage to the forest. By eliminating both harmful and beneficial birds and insects, salvage logging may cause unwanted damage to the forest in the long run. The reading, however, mentions only harmful insects, the spruce bark beetle in particular. It points out that because clearing the forest of dead trees also destroys the habitat of these harmful insects, it ensures the healthy recovery of a forest after fires.
此段功能：
第二个分论点中，作者先引出 L 的结论，适当的居住于死树的昆虫和鸟类是对森林有益的。
一些认为有害的昆虫其实并没造成一些显著的虫害。如果靠移除死树把有益和有害鸟类昆虫
都杀死会造成非预期的长期损失。接着作者开始说 R 只注意到了害虫，认为移除一种特定的
甲虫就能保证森林恢复。
此段结构：
此段为分分结构，作者列出 L 的结论和证据后，只轻易的对比了 R 的结论和证据，但是读者
能感觉到 R 的证据的片面，结论的草率。使 R 在相比之下显得十分幼稚。
Paragraph 4
Finally with regard to economic impact, the lecturer argues against salvage logging because the dead trees can only be salvaged at a very high cost. Additionally, the employment opportunities associated with salvage logging are often temporary and are typically performed by non‐native residents. On the other hand, the reading argues that this practice provides many industries with the wood necessary to sustain production and even offers employment opportunities to local people.
此段功能：
在末尾一点经济影响的争论下。L觉得这种移除死树的策略是需要付出十分高的代价的，而且
所谓的工作机会也只是暂时性的，而且通常靠经验者而不是当地人就能解决的。对比起来，R只说死树给工业提供了原料，并且提供了工作机会。
此段结构：
分分结构，L 还是用证据陈列，直接压倒了 R 陈列的非常不足的证据。
三、范文全篇总评
1、 逻辑结构
全文遵从总分结构，开头段直一句话表明了强烈的反对逻辑和总结了争吵的政策。
随后作者只是详细的罗列了 L 的证据和论点，甚至没有说 R 是错的。但是把 R 的证据和结论
在 L 之后一重复，大家就看出 R 的证据也不完整，结论也很粗率，实在是不堪一击。
2、语言表达
文中并没有使用很多生僻词汇，但是段式十分漂亮，可以借鉴的词句有：
1. The lecturer and the reading passage hold completely different views toward(某政策), which is
the (进一步解释政策).
2. The reading, however, mentions only…(观点和证据)
在一大堆详细的 L 证据下，R 仅罗列了某证据，对比之下清晰的可以看出 R 的不足。
