Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.

Both the reading paragraph and the instruction are discussing burning mirror. According to the passage, it says that the Greeks never build the burning mirror and it gives three points to support its hypothesis. On the other hand, the address refutes the reading passage by stating that the points in the verse are not convincing. First, the reading portion argues that Greeks were not sophisticated in technological knowledge.However, the lecturer contradicts this claim by mentioning that they did not need a single piece of copper sheet in order to build a parabolic structure, Greeks had great mathematicians, they knew about the method to build the parabolic curvature by using small pieces of copper. Second, the reading asserts that the burning mirror took a long time to set on transmit but the Roman smuggles did not wait for that long time. In contrast, the lecturer contends that the experiment showed that it was taken around ten minutes to set a fire to shift, but the Roman transfer was built with other material rather than wood. She also points out that the ancients Greek made the mirror burning with a sticky pitch which was able to fire quickly within seconds even a haul is moving. Lastly, the article proposes, that was no improvement on the weapon over the flaming arrows. Nevertheless, the lecturer counters this statement by arguing that Romans were familiar with the flaming arrows but when they saw the mirror burning, they just see it and there was a beginning of magic and start a fire. Consequently, the burning mirror is much more effective and practical than flaming arrows. In conclusion, while both the reading text and the instruction are discussing the burning mirror, the sentence states that it is just a myth and Greeks never built it, while the address opposes each of them.
Submitted by Nirmala Adhikari on
What to do next: