In the reading passage, the author raises that reading less literature has caused unfortunate effects on the reading public, the cultural general and literature itself. On the contrary, the professor strongly contradicts with it.
To begin with, according to the reading passage, the author mainly talks about reading less literature cannot provide readers with intellectual stimulation. By contrast, the lecturer disagrees with it and she reasons that a book doesn’t have to be literature to be intellectually stimulating. Science books, history and political analysis aren’t literature but they are often of high quality and some of those books are just as creative and well-written as novels and poems. So don’t assume that someone who isn’t reading literature isn’t reading a good book.
To be followed, the reading passage indicates that the culture is in decline. However, the speaker holds the opposite opinion and she says that people are not just spending less time in literature and they are spending less time with books in general. However, today, there are many culturally valuable material that isn’t written such as a brilliant song and good movie. People are not wasting their time when they listen to good songs and watch good movies. Those non-literal activities will not lower the culture. Even some of those creative forms can speak more directly to contemporary concerns than literature does.
Lastly, the writer in the reading part says that it is the readers’ fault to lead to the less support for literature. By comparison, the listening material presents a totally different opinion that it is the authors’ fault because today’s literature is intended to be difficult to understand. So don’t assume the earlier’s generations of readers would read a lot modern literature today.