Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments presented in the reading passage.

The reading passage provides three convincing pieces of evidence of how cloud seeding could protect crops from hail. The professor, however, gives three solid counterarguments about its effectiveness in saving crops. First, according to laboratory experiments, cloud seeding could help protect cultivation from hail. Light snow was observed instead of hail pellets when silver iodide merges into cold water vapor in laboratories. Conversely, the lecturer calls into question the effectiveness of the lab results. She claims that silver iodide could cause drought and damage crops by preventing any clouds from forming. Second, the article states that, as the evidence from Asia, cloud seeding helped control precipitation in urban areas. It also claims that this result could apply to United States farmland. Nevertheless, the lecturer refutes the statement by pointing out that cloud seeding could be impractical in the countryside. It needs some particles to merge with water, and air pollution in the urban environment is very favorable in this condition. Indeed, it could not be workable to protect plants from hail in the U.S. countryside. Third, the reading claims that a few local research support the value of cloud seeding. For example, a study conducted in a farming region in the central U.S. found that it successfully reduced hail damage compared to previous years. On the contrary, the professor refutes the value by saying that cloud seeding could damage unrelated crops in neighboring areas. Since it could cause natural weather variations around many regions, it could destroy plants that need rainfall.
What to do next: