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 weopon, named "burning mirror." The author of the paper argues that it is a myth that Greek 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 of this weapon is possible. According to reading, the technoligy was not improved in ancient Greek time that is possible to creat such an advanced device. The article mentions that the equipments for deforming the copper with such a precision was not available in that time. This specific reason is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that this mirror was not manufatured with a single, and actually it was created with a dozen small pollished copper. Additionally, she points out that these small pieces of copper put together in such a way that form a a big parabollic mirror. Secondly, the author suggests that it is time consuming to burn a ship with the mirror. In the article, it is said that an experiment revealed that it takes at least 10 minutes to set a ship on fire, in the distance of 30 meters. The lecturer, however, asserts that there is a wrong assumption in the experiment, hypothesized that the ship was entirely from wood. She goes on to say that there is a sticky substance in ships for making them waterproof which is burning quickly. Finally, the author puts forth the idea that flaming arrows had already been devised by Greeks. He contends that making burning mirror for setting fire to the ships were not an improvement. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that Roman solidiars were familiar with flaming arrows. She notes that burning the ships with mirrors was a suprise for the Romans, and made the attacks more effective.
What to do next: