Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they respond to the specific points made in the reading passage.

Recently, there has been a ton of debates as to tom’s diary. More specially, in regards to the passages, the critic puts forth the idea that the tom’s notes are not precise. In the listening passage, the lecturer is quick to point out there are some serious flaws in the writer’s claims. In fact, the professor believes that the tom’s memoirs are completely true, and addresses in details, the trouble with each point made in the reading text.

First

and foremost, the columnist of the reading states that tom was not a rich man because Swiss merchant lent him numerous amounts of money.

Moreover

, if he was a wealthy guy why he will borrow wealth?. Some professionals in the same field,

however

, stand in firm opposition to

this

claim. In the listening,

for example

, the professor states that he was a rich man. He goes on to say that he spent his cash on entertainment stuff and his income came from selling goods,

thus

, let him borrow salary from the Swiss merchant,

besides

, he will pay back for him. One group of scholars, represented by the reporter thinks that the conversation was not accurate because they are wondering how he will remember what the author and he was talking about after many years. Of course, though, not all experts in

this

field believe

this

is accurate. Again the speaker specially addresses

this

point when he states that he wrote the conversation right after it's done and he kept it in a place,

then

, when he wants to write his book he goes back to his notes to write exactly what happened between him and the writer.

Finally

, the author wraps his argument by positing that his story about his escaping was wrong and he was building relationships between the workers in the jail. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with

this

claim by contending that there are many prisoners had good relationships with the workers and there are still in prison.

Additionally

, there is evidence trend that his escaping story is true because when he escaped the government rebuild his roof again. To sum up, both the author and professor hold conflicting views about tom’s book. It’s clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on

this

issue.