▶ Your Answer : In this given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the views of the lecturer and the author over the issue of clay jars. The lecturer affirms that indeed, the vessels might have been utilized as electric batteries in ancient times. To start with, the lecturer debunks the author's first conjecture since the author's argument is not convincing. To elaborate in detail, the lecturer claims that materials which induce electricity can be disappeared. She adds that local people discovered the vessels so that they did not know what elements are important. This view is in direct opposition to the author's claim that if clay jars were used to produce electricity, metal wires should have been placed inside them. In addition, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the author's idea on the usage of clay jars. The lecturer sounds convinced that the author is making a manifest error about clay jars since ancient people might have used the vessels not only holding scrolls but also producing electricity. However, the author clarifies that there is valid evidence that the vessels are employed to hold scrolls. Thirdly, the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final point on feasibility of clay jars is flawed. The lecturer mentions that ancient people might used the vessels for various purposes. For example, they could utilize clay jars as showing invisible power and healing patients like modern medical technology. However, this counters the author's theory that there were no applications which can be depended on the vessels. Therefore, with these three convincing explanations the lecturer posits, the author's assumptions are all rendered invalid. |