Both the reading and lecture discuss whether Peary reached the North Pole. The author supports Peary’s claim due to three arguments. Yet, the professor cast doubts on these arguments, concluding they were not convincing.

First of all, Peary’s consistent and persuasive accounts in the committee declared the truth of Peary’s claim in the passage. However, according to the lecture, the professor challenged this argument. She claimed that this committee consisted of Peary’s friends. Hence, the claims of this committee were not completely objective. Meanwhile, it only had two parts, which were biased for the result.

Moreover, since Tom Avery made the same trek in less than 37 days, the passage claimed that Peary’s reaching as possible. Conversely, the professor opposed this argument as well. She said that what Avery experienced were too different from Peary’s condition. For example, although they used the same kind of dogsled and the number and breed of dogs, Avery spent less, such as no transforming food. Hence, it was an unfair condition to compare them. In other words, what Avery spent could not support Peary’s accounts.

Finally, the reading argued that the photographs supported the truth of Peary’s claim. By measuring the shadows of photographs, calculating the Sun’s position was possible. However, the professor disagreed with the usefulness of this method. The method measuring shadow was precise. She claimed that the photographs faded over time. Therefore, photographs produced 100 years ago were useless to compute the Sun’s position in the sky. Hence, the results of this method could not support Peary’s claim.