The reading passage describes that in 1988, an enormous fire in Yellow National Park triggered the policy to be repealed since the fire was firstly allowed to flame yet soon out of control, destructing almost every part of the park. As a result of the fire, many people had faith in the fact that the park may be severely and irrevocably damaged. But the professor counters by suggesting the park can be repaired, and it is not permanently destroyed.     

     The reading first mentions that lots of vegetations were burned, and the rivers and streams were full of ash, so the author believes that the destruction was permanenet. However, the professor says that the dead material went into the soil, and it let the soil become much better and richer than ever. Plus, the trees enabled sunlight to penetrate, and the vegetation would grow better due to the fertile soil. 

     In response to the reading passage's assertion that the high admission fee will discourage people from visiting the national parks and enjoying the parks, but the lecturer claims that the high entrance fee won't let the huge national park be crowded or overcrowded. Because of the high fee, the visitors may go to the small parks instead. 

     The reading passage then describes that checking singular visitors will waste too much time. However, the lecturer doesn't agree with that. She claims that checking process isn't a kind of wasting time. It will increase the quality and the safety of the parks. If one suspicious man has been checked out, the staff will immediately stop him getting in.

     While the author of the reading passage believes that the admission fee should be canceled, the professor is convinced of that the entrance fee should be continued.