Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss the strange weapon called a burning mirror. While the former chiefly states that it is just a historical story or a myth, the latter strongly criticizes the theories mentioned in the reading passage. In other words, the professor refutes each of the author's reason, and expresses the weak points of each idea.
First according to the lecture, the professor makes the point that, it is not necessary to use a single sheet to create a parabolic shape. They could use many small pieces of mirror and attach them into a parabolic shape. In other hand, this hypothesis is in conflict with the one illustrated in the reading passage which says that ancient Greeks had not enough knowledge and technology to produce this huge and curved device. Therefore, the professor directly rebuts the author's claim.
The second point of difference between the lecture and the article concerns the ignition of the fire. The reading expresses that it is a time consuming action to burn a single piece of wood with this device. It also says that during this time, the ship should be stand in a specific area without moving anywhere. However, the professor's view is involved in a dispute with this assumption. She explains that there were some other materials that would start firing in a couple of second. One of these materials was pitch, which is a sticky substance and burns very quickly. Then, the fire could reach the wood and burn the whole ship. Hence, the professor's view contradicts that of the author's.
Finally the professor ends his statement with an assertion that during the war, enemies did not see anything like flams. They just saw that the ship started to burn suddenly. Nevertheless, this notion raises doubts about the discussion in the reading passage which suggests that at this period, the Greeks were using flaming arrows to attack the enemy, and so, it was not necessary to invent such a device like these mirrors for battles. Thus, this opinion, is likewise, rejected by the professor.