TPO 30 Integrated Writing Task

The reading and the lecture are both about the claims that the burning mirror would have been impractical and technologically impossible are unconvincing. The author of the reading feels that a burning mirror is just a myth. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She is on the opposite side with the reading's author. She expresses her viewpoint by three reasons.
To begin with, the author argues that the ancient Greeks did not own advanced technology in order to build a large sheet of copper. the article mentions that the mirror would have to a very precise parabolic center. This specific arguments is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that they did not require to manufacture large copper sheet since they could make the mirror by arranging dozen of small flat pieces of polish copper; then they have literature to determine the precise center of it.
Secondly, the writer suggests the burning mirror would have taken a long time to set the ships on fire with sun's rays, and during this time the wooden ship could not be sustainable.
The lecturer, however, refutes this by mentioning that there is no need that the ships always would be built with wood and they sometimes used another material to build them. it was called pitch. it has catch fire quickly and burned in the few seconds even the ship eas moving.
Finally, the author posits that a burning mirror could not be an effect on a weapon in comparison with flaming arrows. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that although the old soldiers were familiar with flaming arrows but in the burning mirror, you just see the mirror and shoot the flame after few seconds suddenly the enemies' ships start to burn in a speedy rate. So it is effective than previous manner.