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

The article and the lecture are both about an innovative Greek weapon named "burning mirror." While the author of the paper argues that it is a myth that the Greeks defended themselves with this weapon in the Roman navy attack, the lecturer disputes the claims presented by the article. Her position is that creating and utilizing this weapon is possible. According to the reading, technology was not improved in ancient Greek times, so it was possible to create such an advanced device. The article mentions that the equipment for deforming the copper with such precision was not available then. This specific reason is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that this mirror was not manufactured with a single sheet; it was created with a dozen small polished copper. Additionally, she points out that these small pieces of copper are put together in such a way that they form a big parabolic mirror. Secondly, the author suggests that burning a ship with a mirror is time-consuming. In the article, it is said that an experiment revealed that it takes at least 10 minutes to set a ship on fire at a distance of 30 meters. The lecturer, however, asserts that there is a wrong assumption in the experiment that hypothesized the ship was entirely from wood. She goes on to say that ships have a sticky substance that makes them waterproof, burning quickly. Finally, the author puts forth the idea that flaming arrows had already been devised by the Greeks. He contends that making burning mirrors to set fire to the ships was not an improvement. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that Roman soldiers were familiar with flaming arrows. She notes that burning the ships with mirrors was a surprise for the Romans and made the attacks more effective.
What to do next: