The passage and the lecturer both discuss an ancient weapon that was used in the greek, burning mirror. The author of the article believes that this equipment is not very useful. However, the professor holds an opposite opinion and tells students it is really great weapon. both of them state their reasons which I mention below.
Firstly, the passage talks about the feasibility of producing such a weapon in those times in greek. it mentions those days the technology was not advanced enough to build this kind of weapon. The lecturer refutes this opinion and says that it is not important to have that technology to build this weapon with such a big mirror. It can be structured by clinging separated mirrors.
secondly, The author in the passage claims that it is not possible to use this weapon in wartime since you want to burn ships in a shorter time, but this weapon needs at least ten minutes to set the ships on fire. Nonetheless, the professor accepts the opinion of the writer about wood but she highlights that ships at those times have extra material to make them waterproof. This thing burns immediately after getting the heat which comes from the " burning mirror" so it can spreads the fire even while the ships are moving. She believes this device is effective in the war to destroy the enemies' ships.
Finally, the reading passage emphasizes the fact that in the past there were other weapons such as flaming arrows, which are easier to use and the burning mirror did not have any special advantage in comparison with this weapon. On the other hand, the lecturer strongly disagrees with the passage because she thinks there are considerable distinctions between this advance equipment with those simple weapons. She counts some benefits of this innovative weapon such as it burned ships suddenly without any previous sights but when archers used flaming arrows the ship's crew could see it and noticed that the enemy is going to throw arrows toward the ship. So the new weapon has the advantage of surprise.
The
passage
and the lecturer both discuss an ancient
weapon
that was
used
in the
greek
, burning mirror. The author of the article believes that this equipment is not
very
useful.
However
, the professor holds an opposite opinion and
tells
students it is
really
great
weapon
.
both
of them state their reasons which I mention below.
Firstly
, the
passage
talks about the feasibility of producing such a
weapon
in those times in
greek
.
it
mentions those days the technology was not advanced
enough
to build this kind of
weapon
. The lecturer refutes this opinion and says that it is not
important
to have that technology to build this
weapon
with such a
big
mirror. It can
be structured
by clinging separated mirrors.
secondly
, The author in the
passage
claims that it is not possible to
use
this
weapon
in wartime since you want to burn
ships
in a shorter time,
but
this
weapon
needs at least ten minutes to set the
ships
on fire. Nonetheless, the professor accepts the opinion of the writer about wood
but
she highlights that
ships
at those times have extra material to
make
them waterproof. This thing burns immediately after getting the heat which
comes
from the
"
; burning
mirror"
;
so
it can
spreads
the fire even while the
ships
are moving. She believes this device is effective in the war to
destroy
the enemies' ships.
Finally
, the reading
passage
emphasizes the fact that in the past there were other
weapons
such as flaming arrows, which are easier to
use
and the burning mirror did not have any special advantage
in comparison
with this
weapon
.
On the other hand
, the lecturer
strongly
disagrees with the
passage
because
she
thinks
there are considerable distinctions between this advance equipment with those simple
weapons
. She counts
some
benefits of this innovative
weapon
such as it burned
ships
suddenly
without any previous sights
but
when archers
used
flaming arrows the ship's crew could
see
it and noticed that the enemy is going to throw arrows toward the
ship
.
So
the new
weapon
has the advantage of surprise.