Integrated, TPO 25

Both the passage and the professor discuss about the utilization of clay jars and evidence that support or eject this approach. The passage’s opinion is that it is less likely that vessels were used as electric batteries in ancient times and provides three reasons to support its approach. However, the professor is skeptical about the passage’s way of reasoning accordingly, contradicts each reason which is mentioned at the reading.

First, the reading claims that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that certain metal wires were attached to vessels in order to be used as batteries. However, the professor explains that local people find these clay jars that did not have any information about these tools because they were not an archaeologists. It is more likely that certain materials like metal wires were overlooked by local people.

Second, the passage posits that certain parts of jars are similar to what are discovered at other areas that have ancient city. By discovering this similarity the passage concludes that these jars used as the same way in both areas. In contrast, the professor does not accept this hypothesis and he explains that this similarity does not prove any things because it is more likely that these jars were produced for certain goals while were adopted for other purposes at other areas.

Third, the article stress on the useless of the vessels due to lack of evidence that replied on electricity. The professor casts doubt on this approach and he states that some evidence show that there was a invisible power to cure certain diseases and acted as a shock. It is more likely that the clay jar worked when was touched by person’s hand and made electricity shock in order to heal people.