The lecture contradicts the reading’s claims about the advantages of using electronic medical records over traditional paper records. While the reading outlines three major benefits—cost savings, reduction of medical errors, and improved research— the professor disputes each of these points with strong counterarguments. First, the reading states that electronic medical records help reduce costs by eliminating the need for paper-based storage and administrative expenses. However, the lecturer explains that in reality, many doctors continue to keep paper records as backups due to legal and security concerns. He points out that hospitals and clinics fear losing important patient information in case of technical failures or cyberattacks. As a result, medical institutions still maintain physical copies, which means that cost savings are not as significant as the reading suggests. Second, the article argues that electronic records help minimize medical errors caused by illegible handwriting. The professor disagrees, explaining that handwritten notes are still widely used in medical practice. Doctors often write prescriptions and patient details on paper before entering them into the system, meaning that errors from poor handwriting can still persist. Furthermore, he mentions that data entry mistakes can occur when transferring information from paper to digital format, creating new types of errors rather than eliminating them entirely. Finally, the reading states that electronic records improve medical research by allowing researchers easier access to patient data. The lecturer refutes this, stating that strict privacy regulations severely limit researchers’ ability to use electronic records. He explains that patient confidentiality laws require special permissions for accessing medical data, and in many cases, hospitals and clinics restrict access to only authorized personnel. This means that researchers often face bureaucratic obstacles that make it difficult to obtain the large datasets necessary for medical studies. Consequently, the expected benefits of digital records for research are not as significant as the reading claims. In conclusion, while the reading presents electronic medical records as a highly beneficial alternative to paper records, the professor provides strong counterarguments that challenge this view. He demonstrates that cost savings are limited, medical errors are not entirely eliminated, and research access remains restricted. These points weaken the argument that electronic records are a superior solution for the medical industry.