▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer and the reading
passage discuss the vessels, which have a copper cylinder. The professor claims
that the theories that the vessels were not used as electric batteries are not
supported by evidence in the reading passage. This counters the reading
passage’s claim that it is unlikely that the vessels were really used as
electric batteries in ancient times.
To begin with, the speaker
asserts that people who found these vessels could miss important part of the
vessels. At that time, people who found these vessels were not archaeologist,
but local people. Therefore, the local people did not get training for
excavation and it was likely that they missed or threw away some part of the
vessels, which is an important evidence for electric batteries. This contradicts
one of the points in the reading passage’s claim that there is no evidence of
any electricity conductors around the vessels.
On top of that, the speaker
mentions that the copper cylinder in the vessels has the same shape with
holding scroll, but it does not prove anything. Even if the copper cylinder in
the vessels had been created and used for same purpose with the holding scroll
in the beginning, this copper cylinder could be adapted for another purpose
later on. This is the opposite of the reading passage’s claim that it is highly
possible the copper cylinder in the vessels were used for holding scrolls.
Finally, the speaker argues
that there are many ways to use electric power for ancient people. For example,
ancient people could use electric power to treat muscle pain. In addition, the
battery could make a mild shock and some people used this power to be convinced,
they have magic power. This refutes the reading passage claims that the
electronic power the vessels produced would have been useless to ancient
people.
|