The reading passage presents three reasons to suggest that the Ocean Cleanup Array (OCA) is an efficient method for cleaning up plastic in the oceans. However, the lecturer challenges these claims, providing counterarguments to each point. First, the reading asserts that the OCA is less expensive than other ocean cleanup methods because it relies on natural ocean currents and thus expends less energy. While the lecturer acknowledges the lower energy costs, she argues that the reading overlooks other significant expenses. Specifically, she explains that the harsh ocean environment damages OCA devices frequently, leading to substantial repair costs. Furthermore, because of the immense quantity of plastic in the oceans, approximately 500 devices would be required to maintain cleanliness. This greatly increases the total expenses, making the OCA far more costly than the reading suggests. Second, the reading claims that the OCA has minimal impact on marine life because its fixed barriers do not trap swimming animals. However, the lecturer refutes this, highlighting that the OCA would negatively affect marine life by collecting plankton. She explains that plankton, carried by ocean currents alongside the plastic, would be removed during the cleanup process. Since plankton is a vital food source for many marine species, its removal could disrupt the oceanic food chain, contradicting the reading's claim of minimal environmental impact. Third, the reading argues that the plastic collected by the OCA, such as polyethylene and polypropylene, can be recycled and sold to recycling facilities. The lecturer counters this by pointing out that recycling ocean plastics is neither practical nor cost-effective. She explains that plastics in the ocean break into small pieces, making them expensive to separate. Additionally, marine organisms that adhere to the plastic must be cleaned off, further increasing costs. As a result, recycling ocean plastics requires significant effort and expense, making it far less viable than the reading suggests. In conclusion, the lecturer challenges the feasibility of the OCA by identifying its high costs, its harmful impact on marine life, and the impracticality of recycling the collected plastic.