TPO-30 - Integrated Writing Task A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a "burning mirror": a polished co

The lecture and passage both discuss three hypotheses around a weapon which is dubbed burning mirror. The reading posits that this tool could not be existed as a weapon by demonstrating three counterarguments reasons. In contrast, the lecturer explains that the justifications of reading are not convincing and refutes each author's reason.

Firstly, the reading claims that ancient Greek was not technically and practically so advanced to build such a solid and precise gadget. The professor denies this and explains that Greek people did not need to build a single mirror from a big copper. They could place and arrange small pieces of copper together and form a large mirror. Besides, Greek mathematicians knew how to set a parabolic mirror.

Secondly, the passage indicates that burring mirror perhaps could not be feasible and efficient because it took long hours to set the ships on fire. Speaker opposes this by talking that reading assumes Roman’s ships were just made from wood. But, Roman navy used other materials and substances to build their boats. For instance, they employed an especial material named pitch in order to seal and make waterproof their ships. According to the professor, this material takes fire by mirror very quickly in the seconds.

Thirdly, the text mentions that Greek soldiers already had another effective weapon, flaming arrows, and so burning mirror did not seem to be necessary. The lecturer denies this and says that Romance navy was ready and aware about flaming arrows. However, they could not see the burning raised from the mirror and this would be more surprising and beneficial.