▶ Your Answer : As far as the clay jars are concerned, the lecturer takes a stand that opposes the thesis of the reading and presents three counterarguments. Specifically, the lecturer does not sympathize with the reading and argues that the clay jars could be used for electricity. In the first place, the lecturer points out that the metal wires were found by local people, not archaeologists. Therefore, they might overlooked the importance of other materials except for the clay jars nearby the excavation site, so the metal wires could be thrown out. This directly contradicts the reading that the metal wires should be attached to any electricity conductors if the clay jars could produce electricity. Secondly, the lecturer goes on to say that the people might learn how to generate electricity by blending some of chemicals such as iron, copper and water together in the cylinders. And later, they would diversify the use of electricity. This point tarnishes the impact of the reading that the cylinders did not serve as electricity generator at that time. Last but not least, the lecturer concludes by saying that the electricity made by the electric batteries could be used to show more power. In addition, there is a possibility that the electricity could heal people in the similar way modern therapy use mild electricity to cure patients. This casts doubt on the reading that the vessels were useless because there were no devices utilized for electricity. |