The main idea of both the passage and the the talk is about a well-known adventure and arctic explorer, Robert E. Peary. In the text, the author claims Peary reached to North Pole and provides three evidence for support. The lecturer challenges all the viable arguments mentioned in the reading and believes that none of them is convincing.
Firstly, the author states that the National Geographic Society's investigation confirm that Peary reached North Pole. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that investigation which had been done has some flaws. She further explains that Peary's intimate friend was in the committee and national geographic society do not devote a tremendous amount of time for investigation. Therefore, the results was not based on reality, and there objectively conducted.
Moreover, the author asserts that a recent expedition which have been performed by Avery support this claims that it is possible to reach North Pole in 37 days. The speaker, in contrast, points out that some differences are visible between Avery's and Peary's expedition. In addition, she believes that although dogsleds were same for both people, Avery did not carry out a lot of cargo as Peary with his dogsled. Moreover, weather was more favorable when Avery did his expedition.
Eventually, the reading passage holds the opinion that Peary's photographs provide evidence for his claims to have reached the North Pole. On the other hand, the lecture posits that the photographs were not a strong evidence for Peary's claim, since the photographs were not in excellent format and they were faded. Thus, it is not possible to reach a precise conclusion about Pear's claim by the faded photographs.
The main
idea
of both the passage and
the the
talk is about a well-known adventure and arctic explorer, Robert E. Peary. In the text, the author
claims
Peary reached to
North
Pole
and provides three evidence for support. The lecturer challenges all the viable arguments mentioned in the reading and believes that none of them is convincing.
Firstly
, the author states that the National Geographic Society's investigation confirm that Peary reached
North
Pole
.
Conversely
, the lecturer brings up the
idea
that investigation which had
been done
has
some
flaws. She
further
explains
that Peary's intimate friend was in the committee and national geographic society do not devote a tremendous amount of time for investigation.
Therefore
, the results was not based on reality, and there
objectively
conducted.
Moreover
, the author asserts that a recent expedition which have
been performed
by Avery support this
claims
that it is possible to reach
North
Pole
in 37 days. The speaker,
in contrast
, points out that
some
differences are visible between Avery's and Peary's expedition.
In addition
, she believes that although dogsleds were same for both
people
, Avery did not carry out
a lot of
cargo as Peary with his dogsled.
Moreover
, weather was more favorable when Avery did his expedition.
Eventually
, the reading passage holds the opinion that Peary's
photographs
provide evidence for his
claims
to have reached the
North
Pole
.
On the other hand
, the lecture posits that the
photographs
were not a strong evidence for Peary's
claim
, since the
photographs
were not in excellent
format and
they
were faded
.
Thus
, it is not possible to reach a precise conclusion about Pear's
claim
by the faded
photographs
.