The lecturer claims that vessels might have been used to produce
electricity. Also, he asserts that the proposed reasons are not convincing.
This contradicts the author's assertion that three reasons why ancient people
would not have used vessel as electric batteries.
The first point made in the passage is that
metal wires should have been stuck sticked with
vessels in order to use as a batteries. The lecturer, however, challenges this
particular viewpoint by arguing that ancient local people have found vessels who
had no clues about materials unlike the archaeologists. He gives detail that
they might not recognized the important materials of vessels. Thus, they might
overlooked the wires or even thrown away.
Another point the article puts an emphasis on is
that vessels are similar to the copper cylinder which were used for holding
scrolls of sacred texts. In contrast, the professor contends that this possible
reason cannot prove anything. Vessels might have been
originally designed as a copper cylinder at first. After a while, people have
found that it could be used for producing electricity. Hence, they have changed
the purpose of cylinders.
Finally, it is stated in the text that ancient
people have had nothing to use electricity produced by vessels. On the contrary,
it is accentuated in the reading that ancient people could have used it as a
minor shock. They could have admired a got
admire for magical power of invisible shock. Additionally, it could worked
as a healing system which already have been used to relieve pains or muscles by
electricity.
Good (24)
서론
-가정법 would p.p 형태로 써주셔야 합니다.
첫번째 본문
-가정법 should have been p.p 의 과거분사로 써주셔야합니다. stick의 과거분사는 stuck입니다.
두번째 본문
-might have p.p
세번째 본문
-could have p.p
내용 정리 괜찮습니다. 가정법 구문 정확하게 쓰는 연습해주세요.
수고하셨습니다~~