The professor refutes the idea proposed in the passage.

The professor refutes the idea proposed in the passage. She is of the view that all the arguments provided by the author are not convincing. First of all, the writer suggests that the conclusion of the National Geographic Society's investigation of Peary's records and equipment are reliable to corroborate the authenticity. However, the lecturer casts doubt on committee’s objectivity of the conclusion that some Peary’s friends financed his expedition. Also, the committee’s investigation only last two days, it means that they have not examined it carefully. Hence, their investigation is unwarranted. Secondly, according to the passage, a recent expedition made the same trek like Peary's expedition suggested the reliability. For this, the speaker points out that this expedition was on the different way with Peary’s trek. Although the trek is similar, the recent one has less weight of food than Peary's. Also, the weather condition of the recent expedition is favorable than the prior one. Lastly, the author claims that deduced by photographs taken by Peary, one can conclude similar Surf's position with where it should be. The professor, quite the opposite, says that one cannot establish exact Surf's position by the photographs. She further demonstrates that Peary used the primitive camera, and thus the photographs are unfocused. Also, the photographs are faded now. Consequently, the shadows are too blurred to be used as evidence.