Both the reading and the lecture argue about the correctness of the claims which contended in Chevalier's memoir which describes his life. The reading states some critics over the Chevalier's claims. However, the lecturer challenges the opposition made by the author. She is in the opinion that the memoir is precise overall as a historical source and he wrote correctly in detail.
Firstly, the reading claims that had Chevalier been a wealthy man, he would not borrow money from a merchant. The professor challenges these specific critics by pointing that borrowing money does not indicate poorness. She argues that because it was taking time to convert the assets to money, he had to wait for preparing the money. As a result, he borrows some money from the merchant.
Secondly, the reading asserts that in spite of accepting that Chevalier discusses with renowned writer Voltaire it is impossible to admit he evokes detail descriptions of conversations that had happened many years ago. On the contrary, the lecturer mentions that Chevalier wrote everything about their conversation in detail each night. Additionally, she alleges that the witness confirmed the detail that he composed in the memoir.
Eventually, the author of the reading points that Chevalier's claim about escaping from prison, by using metal to make a hole in the ceiling, is not correct, and he just bribed the prisoners to free him. However, the professor referred to an even more powerful man who was in his prison and could not offer a bribe to jailers. Besides, she mentions that in the remained notes, it has written that soon after Chevalier run away, jail's ceiling had repaired. If he did not escape from prison, it would not be necessary to renovate the ceiling.
Both the
reading
and the lecture argue about the correctness of the
claims
which contended in Chevalier's memoir which
describes
his life. The
reading
states
some
critics over the Chevalier's
claims
.
However
, the lecturer challenges the opposition made by the author. She is in the opinion that the memoir is precise
overall
as a historical
source and
he wrote
correctly
in detail.
Firstly
, the
reading
claims
that had Chevalier been a wealthy
man
, he would not borrow
money
from a merchant. The professor challenges these specific critics by pointing that borrowing
money
does not indicate poorness. She argues that
because
it was taking time to convert the assets to
money
, he had to wait for preparing the
money
.
As a result
, he borrows
some
money
from the merchant.
Secondly
, the
reading
asserts that
in spite of
accepting that Chevalier discusses with renowned writer Voltaire it is impossible to admit he evokes detail descriptions of conversations that had happened
many
years ago.
On the contrary
, the lecturer mentions that Chevalier wrote everything about their conversation in detail each night.
Additionally
, she alleges that the witness confirmed the detail that he composed in the memoir.
Eventually
, the author of the
reading
points that Chevalier's
claim
about escaping from prison, by using metal to
make
a hole in the ceiling, is not correct, and he
just
bribed the prisoners to free him.
However
, the professor referred to an even more powerful
man
who was in his prison and could not offer a bribe to jailers.
Besides
, she mentions that in the remained notes, it has written that
soon
after Chevalier run away, jail's ceiling had repaired. If he did not escape from prison, it would not be necessary to renovate the ceiling.