The authors of the reading passage claim that the clay jars which had been discovered in Iraq have nothing to do with producing electricity; however the lecture finds all the reasons introduced by passage precarious, and it advances a group of explanation to repudiate them all.
First of all, the author argues that if the vessel had been developed to use as batteries, archeologists should have found some evidence related to metal wires. Contrariwise, the professor considers the idea that this reason is unconvincing owing to the fact that some local people have found material near the excavated place, and they did not give their findings to archeologists. She explains that they might have discarded their findings, or they may have assumed their findings as an unimportant things.
Furthermore, the passage holds the view that the copper cylinders inside the clay jars are used for holding scrolls like others which had been discovered from Seleucia. Over again, the professor brings this reason into question through providing the fact that similarity between these two systems did not disprove the central claim that they were fabricated to produce electricity. She claims that later discoveries demonstrates the usefulness of copper cylinders to produce electricity when liquid water is added into this type of cylinder. In fact, the copper cylinders were early implemented to hold scrolls; however, later, they were developed to serve as another purpose.
The last point on which both the lecture and the reading are in contradiction with one another is that reading announces the fact that if ancient people had created these systems to produce electricity, in what way they would have used this electricity. In other words, these batteries were useless to them. On the contrary, the professor states that they could use them to generate mild shocks in order to convince other people that they have magical powers, and put them into medical purposes to improve muscle’s operation.
The authors of the reading passage claim that the clay jars which had
been discovered
in Iraq have nothing to do with producing
electricity
;
however
the lecture finds all the reasons introduced by passage precarious, and it advances a group of explanation to repudiate them all.
First of all
, the author argues that if the vessel had
been developed
to
use
as batteries, archeologists should have found
some
evidence related to metal wires. Contrariwise, the professor considers the
idea
that this reason is unconvincing owing to the
fact
that
some
local
people
have found material near the excavated place, and they did not give their findings to archeologists. She
explains
that they might have discarded their findings, or they may have assumed their findings as an unimportant
things
.
Furthermore
, the passage holds the view that the copper
cylinders
inside the clay jars are
used
for holding scrolls like others which had
been discovered
from
Seleucia
. Over again, the professor brings this reason into question through providing the
fact
that similarity between these two systems did not disprove the central claim that they
were fabricated
to produce
electricity
. She claims that later discoveries demonstrates the usefulness of copper
cylinders
to produce
electricity
when liquid water is
added
into this type of
cylinder
. In
fact
, the copper
cylinders
were early implemented to hold scrolls;
however
, later, they
were developed
to serve as another purpose.
The last point on which both the lecture and the reading are in contradiction with one another is that reading announces the
fact
that if ancient
people
had created these systems to produce
electricity
, in what way they would have
used
this
electricity
.
In other words
, these batteries were useless to them.
On the contrary
, the professor states that they could
use
them to generate mild shocks in order to convince other
people
that they have magical powers, and put them into medical purposes to
improve
muscle’s operation.