In the lecture, the professor casts serious doubts on the article and maintains that none of the points proving cloud seeding would be effectvie in protecting crops from hail mentioned in the reading paragraphs are convincing. The professor presents several evidences as follows to illustrate her opinions.
The first point retorted by the professor is as to the result of lab experiments. She asserts that, it is true that the result of lab experiments indicate the cloud seeding can make precipitation to be light snow instead of hail, however, in real life, the cloud seeding can prevent any type of precipitation, namely, snow, rain, or hail. In this case, with the effect of cloud seeding, the crops will suffer from the risks of terrible drought. In contrast, the author's viewpoint seems flawed.
Secondly, in terms of the evidence from Asia, opposite to the reading material, the professor points out that the cloud seeding has only been successfully used to control precipitation in urban areas, but the situations in city and countryside are quite different. This lies in the fact that the level of air pollution is usually extremely high in urban areas. Additionally, pollution particles can interact with seeding chemicals, which further result in controlling precipitation in urban areas. Consequently, this won't necessarily occur in unpolluted areas.
Finally, the professor believes that it is the change of local weather that cause the result of local studies, because the south, north and east area of the farming region where the study had been conducted also have less hail damage compared to previous years. Thus, this significant change may have nothing to do with cloud seeding, which directly contradict the author's statement.
In sum, the author's three reasons explaining why cloud seeding would effective in protecting crops are totally disproved by the professor.