In the given set of materials, the reading passage and the lecture deal with the solution of global warming.
They disagree over the efficiency of the rocket filled with sulfur dioxide.
The reading emphasized the disadvantages of launching the rocket filled with sulfur, whereas the lecture argues against this by providing three compelling reasons.

The professor points out that the rockets with sulfur will not cause acid rain, because the acid rain occurs with a huge amount of water vapor.
Also, the stratosphere which the rockets would be reached is far from the place which the acid rain occurs.
It challenges the point made in the reading passage that the rockets with sulfur will cause the acid rain.

Second, the lecturer also argues that the expense of rockets with sulfur may be the cheapest compared to the other possible solutions.
For example, replacing the automobile's fuel into eco-friendly fuel requires a huge amount of money, because the Earth is so large and fuel is frequently used.
This refutes that reading, which claimed that high cost is required in order to launch the rocket, which costs billion dollars per one.

Finally, the professor claims that reducing only one or two degrees of Earth's temperature will be much effective to the global warming.
Only one or two degrees drop can make less glaciers to melt, and other problems caused by global warming will be effective positively.
This refutes the reading passage which states that launching the rockets filled with sulfur may not be effective.