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

In the given set of materials, the reading and the lecture are both about the adventurer Robert Peary, who might have explored the North Pole. While the author provides three possible theories to support the success of this expedition, the lecturer disputes the claims made in the text. In particular, her position is that there is no solid evidence that the explorer reached the North Pole, and it is not convincing either. First of all, according to the reading, the National Geographic committee investigated Peary's records and concluded that his accounts were consistent and right. Nevertheless, this specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. Moreover, she declares that the ommittee was not objective because it included Peary's friends who had funded the expedition. Additionally, according to the explorer, they did not investigate his records entirely; hence, their conclusion was biased. Secondly, the article suggests that reaching the North Pole in 37 days was possible because a British explorer named Tom Avery accomplished this challenge and made the same trek in less than the given time. The speaker, on the other hand, asserts that Avery had much less weight and that good weather conditions helped him reach his destination. Finally, the author posits that by measuring the shadows in Peary's photographs, the sun's position in the sky can be calculated. In contrast, the professor's stance is that these photographs were taken one hundred years ago; therefore, they were fuzzy and blurry, and it is impossible to calculate the sun's position. As you can see, the listening part casts doubts on the points made in the text by bringing up its compelling examples and explanations to elaborate its viewpoint.