‘
HKS2 integrated writing #5
In the lecture, the lecturer mainly argues
that the suggestions about the ‘will-o’-the wisp’ are less convincing and has a
lot of problems. This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that there
several likely hypotheses to explain the existence of the ‘will-o’-the wisp’.
First, the professor argues that the ‘will-o’-the
wisp’ is not caused by any chemical illumination. Scientists have tested the
gas, phosphine, and found that phosphine lets results cool and greenish mists.
On the other hand, the wisps are red, yellow or white light, different from the
phosphine’s illumination. This goes against the reading passage’s claim that gas
called ‘phosphine’ caused the glowing wisps as chemical illumination.
Second of all, the lecturer argues that
fireflies are not mistaken as wisps because fireflies are spread out and blinks
a lot. Meanwhile, wisps have steady and slow light that doesn’t blink at all.
This encounters the reading passage’s claim that it must be the abdomen of the
fireflies to look as if they are wisps.
Third of all, the professor explained that
Barn owls couldn’t be the reason for the wisps because they are not entirely
white, and they don’t have enough light around them at night. They are not as
illuminant as the lights of the wisps. The wisps have lasting and straight
radiance while Barn owls have a very dim glow. This totally contradicts the
reading passage’s claim that the Barn owls must be the reason for the wisps
because they not only hunts silently at night, but also has a reflective white
plumage.