tpo8

The lecture opposes the main idea of the reading passage and logically disputes all the supportive points presented in the passage. The reading states that some critics raised doubts about the accuracy of Chevalier's memoir. They state that Chevalier changed or invented many events in his memoir to make his life looks more interesting. However, the professor in his lecture refutes this argument considering it unconvincing and challenges all the specific reasons mentioned in the reading.
Firstly, the professor refers to the first point of the reading. According to the passage, critics argued about how a rich man like Chevalier owned large wealth and borrowed money from a Swiss merchant. However, the professor refutes this by stating that Chevalier was rich, but his fortune was goods, so he had to sell these goods and wait for a few days to get his money in cash. Therefore, he borrowed money from a Swiss merchant.
Secondly, the lecture presents the second reason in the reading passage. The text claims that Chevalier recorded his memoir many years after the conversation occurred. Therefore, it was impossible to capture all these details correctly. Nevertheless, the lecture rejects this claim, saying that Chevalier used to write down everything he could remember every night. So, when he tried to record his memoirs, he returned to these conversations and used them as a reference.
Finally, the lecture addresses the third point from the reading. The passage posits that Chevalier escape from the notorious prison in Italy by making a hole in the ceiling using a piece of metal and climbing the wall. However, the critics claim that he bribed the jailers to escape him. In contraction, the professor refutes this claim, saying that many other prisoners had more power than him, but they did not have the chance to bribe the jailers and escape from the prison. In addition, she states that why they ordered to repair the ceiling of Chevalier's room if he did not escape in the same way he mentioned?