The lecturer deems Chevalier's memoir as accurate and reliable, unlike otherwise stated in the reading passage. She rebukes the points made in passage questioning the reliability of the memoirs one by one.
Firstly she counters the point that Chevalier must have been poor since he had to borrow money from a merchant. She explains that borrowing money does not necessarily translate into being poor. Cheveliar was very affluent person and was involved in luxuries such as parties and gambling, which require a lot of money. Chevelier had money in terms of gold, land and other assets which take time to convert into money. Which is why he had to borrow money from the merchant.
The second point made in the passage is that Chevalier wrote about his meeting with Voltaire years after the meeting actually took place and hence the details of the conversation must have been obscured and cannot be termed as reliable. The lecturer counters this by saying that it has been confirmed by witnesses that Chevalier used to takes notes from his conversation with Voltaire each night. While writing his memoir, Chevelier referred to those notes and hence the details provided in his memoir regarding his meeting with Voltaire can be completely trusted.
The third point questioning the reliability of Chevelier's memoir mentioned in the passage is that the incidence of Chevelier escaping a prison in Venice is a false claim since Chevelier has good friendship with the guards and he must have bribed them to release him rather than making a heroic escape. In response to this, the lecturer explains that other prisoners were known to have more powerful friends than Chevelier but they were not able to escape the prison. Moreover, old Venician documents show that after Chevelier's escape from the prison, the ceiling of his cell needed to be repaired. Thus, the lecturer poses a counter question, if Chevelier did not escape as mentioned in the memoir, then what was the need to repair the ceiling?
In conclusion, the lecturer counters the argument made in the passage regarding the reliability of Chevelier's memoir by providing a different perspective and additional facts which were not considered previously.
The
lecturer
deems Chevalier's
memoir
as accurate and reliable, unlike
otherwise
stated in the reading
passage
. She rebukes the
points
made in
passage
questioning the reliability of the
memoirs
one by one.
Firstly
she
counters
the
point
that Chevalier
must
have been poor since he had to borrow
money
from a merchant. She
explains
that borrowing
money
does not
necessarily
translate into being poor.
Cheveliar
was
very
affluent person and
was involved
in luxuries such as parties and gambling, which require
a lot of
money
.
Chevelier
had
money
in terms of gold, land and other assets which take time to convert into
money
. Which is why he had to borrow
money
from the merchant.
The second
point
made in the
passage
is that Chevalier wrote about his meeting with Voltaire years after the meeting actually took place and
hence
the
details
of the conversation
must
have
been obscured
and cannot
be termed
as reliable. The
lecturer
counters
this by saying that it has
been confirmed
by witnesses that Chevalier
used
to
takes
notes from his conversation with Voltaire each night. While writing his
memoir
,
Chevelier
referred to those notes and
hence
the
details
provided in his
memoir
regarding his meeting with Voltaire can be completely trusted.
The third
point
questioning the reliability of
Chevelier
's
memoir
mentioned in the
passage
is that the incidence of
Chevelier
escaping a prison in Venice is a false claim since
Chevelier
has
good
friendship with the
guards and
he
must
have bribed them to release him
rather
than making a heroic
escape
. In response to this, the
lecturer
explains
that other prisoners
were known
to have more powerful friends than Chevelier
but
they were not able to
escape
the prison.
Moreover
,
old
Venician
documents
show
that after
Chevelier
's
escape
from the prison, the ceiling of his cell needed to
be repaired
.
Thus
, the
lecturer
poses a
counter
question, if
Chevelier
did not
escape
as mentioned in the
memoir
, then what was the need to repair the ceiling?
In conclusion
, the
lecturer
counters
the argument made in the
passage
regarding the reliability of
Chevelier
's
memoir
by providing a
different
perspective and additional facts which were not considered previously.