The reading and the lecturer are both about Chevalier de singlet's memoir.

The reading and the lecturer are both about Chevalier de singlet's memoir. The author of the reading feels that he is not happy with the pieces of evidence he received. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion, that the source of evidence was accurate. To begin with, the author feels that Chevalier has borrowed money from the Swiss merchant despite he was rich. The article mentions that the Chevalier was wealthy by spending his money on parties and gambling. This particular argument was challenged by the lecturer. She says that if Chevalier borrowed money from the Swiss merchant it does not mean he was poor. Additionally, she mentions that when the Chevalier ran out of money, he sold one of his properties. So, for the time being, he borrowed money from the merchant. Secondly, the article mentions that there was no accuracy in the memoir recordings. The author says that since the recording was done by referring the memo many years ago, it might be not a valid one. However, the lecturer says that the Chevalier took a memo of his friend and his conversations each night. In addition to that, the lecturer says that Chevalier was updating that memo on a daily basis. So there will not any doubt that the recordings are not accurate. Finally, the author mentions that Chevalier escaped from prison by using bribery. The article posits this by mentioning that Chevalier had well-connected friends in Venice who might have helped him to escape from prison. The lecturer disputes this by saying even more powerful contacts were thereby many prisoners. He escaped from the prison, the way he mentioned in the memoir.