The article introduces Chevalier de Seingalt memoirs.

The article introduces Chevalier de Seingalt memoirs. More specifically, the author discusses how inaccuarte this memoirs are. The lecturer in the listening disagrees. He believes that the memoirs are correct and one of the most reliable historical source. In the reading, the writer begins by stating that Chevalier was not wealthy since he was in need of money and that the evidence showed that he borrowed an ample amount of money from a Swiss merchant. The lecturer, however, disagrees with this viewpoint. He believes taking a loan from the merchant does not mean that he was poor. He acually had properties that he sold to get money and that it takes time to convert it into cash. Therefore in this period he ran out of money and that explains why he borrowed money. The writer also claims that the conversations that was held between Chevalier and the famous writer Voltaire is not that accuarte and that it is impossible to remember the exact phrases and words. Again, the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argumet. He states that Chevalier used to write everything they talked about and kept them so that he can refer to them later and the people who lived with him confirmed that. Another reason why the writer feels that Chevalier is more likely to escape the prison by the help of his political friends who could free him by giving bribes and not through a hole in the ceiling as mentioned in the memoir. The lecturer is doubtful that this is accuarte. He suggest that other prisoners had more powerful friends and could not escape and that bribe could be hard in his case. He goes on to say that after Chevalier escape the ceiling of the cell he was in have been repaired which shows that he acually escaped through the hole in the ceiling. To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting views about the accuracy of Chevalier de Seingalt memoirs. It's clear they will have trouble finding common ground on this issue.