The article explains that Clevair and provides three reasons that he often created skeptical stories. However, the professor supports what he did by using some historical sources and refutes each of the author's points. 

First, the reading says that he borrows a lot of money from his merchants and makes him a rich person. Thus, the author sees him as a poor person. The professor refutes this point by stating that he didn't borrow money from the merchants, but made a profit by selling goods. He just needed to wait for arriving the money. It is ridiculous to think he is poor for waiting to get the profits.

Second, the article states that he created the wrong story between Voltair in his book. It is true that they were known each other, but the author mentions that it is not possible for him to remember all conversations with Voltair and write down everything in his book. Nonetheless, the professor says that those conversations are true. According to her, there were some witnesses to see and listen to the conversations. The witnesses proved that what he wrote about the talk with Voltair. 

Third, the reading points out that it is not true that he escaped from a prison in Italy by breaking out the roof of his room. The professor opposes this point by mentioning an old historical document about the incidence. The document state that the prison has a room whose roof was repaired. she states that if he hadn't escaped from the prison by destroying the roof, the prison wouldn't have needed to fix the roof. 

In conclusion, although the reading and the lecture are both about what Clevore had done, the three main points made in the reading are effectively challenged by the lecturer.