If a kid soul would be generous to grade and/or constructively criticize my writing.
Both the passage and the lecture discuss the decline in the reading of lecture by the youth. However, the author claims that this decline hinders the benefits of these readings, the lecturer rebuts them and states three reasons.
First of all, the author mentions that the intellect and imagination would be lowered by the lack of reading. The professor claims that a literature book is not the only source of stimulating intellect. She mentions that any well written book can aluminate imagination. A book doesn’t need to be stimulating to be good or useful to generate good benefits for the reader.
Second of all, the latter argues that by reading trivial forms like self-helping books would hinder the culture. But the listening avers that culture is not at all in danger of declining. Books aren’t the only form of culture. Culture is in music, art and other forms that are mor accessible and expressive than a literature book. But also, culture is in constant change wish is better portrayed by other forms than a book.
Third of all, the text mentions that the publishers so not support good writers. On the other hand, the former asserts that the reader nor the publisher have the fault of the lack of support, instead the author is to blame by creating difficult reading to understand by the public.