tpo 30.1

The text and lecturer offer two opposing views on the accuracy of the hypothesis which illustrates the reasons of the Greek's burring mirror as a defender. While the reading part lists some factors to suspect this event, the professor counters these specific points and presents some clues to call into question for the information in the text.

First of all, the professor refutes the deficient of technological advancement, which in the reading part is named as one of the elements which question this incident’s possibilities. The lecturer states that although there were not equipped that much to produce a big sheet of the mirror, they made thousands of small polished copper sheets and by their intelligible mathematics sciences combine them. Thus, this combination depicted the same function as the big sheet of mirror.

Next, although the passage uses the surmise of the long burning duration and mobility of ship which prevented this incident to take place and mentions to an experiment which advocates this inference, the professor doubts the truth of this claim. As the man asserts while this experiment takes place just by the wood, the Roman navy ship were built up with different materials and various inflaming span. For instance, they were a sticky substance named pitch and it burnt just in a second. Consequently, as the ship was fluctuated in the sea the fire spread out by this material.

Finally, the lecturer argues the usage of the flaming arrows, which rendered the same function as mirror, in place of the big polished copper mirror. Meanwhile, the passage presumes that the utilities of those arrows were so convenient in the sake of their expertise on the shooting the arrows. Based upon the professor's evidences the fire arrows were well-known by the Roman navy and they knew how to attack with them. However, the mirror was a tricky way which the Roman soldiers were not able to recognize them as threaten and they did not have the knowledge to how defend it.