tpo 25 task 1

The text and lecturer offer two opposing views on the accuracy of the hypothesis which counts the vessel as the ancient electric batteries. While the text list some factors such as the lack of the electrical conductors, main usage of the copper cylinders as the scroll containers, and no real usage of the electricity as the main reasons to refuse the surmise, the professor counters these specific points and presents some clues to call into question the information in the reading passage.

First of all, the professor refutes the lack of electric conductors such as metal wires, which in the reading part named as a main cause of this disapproval. The lecturer states that this discovery enacted with the ordinary people without the sufficient knowledge about the archaeology. Thus, this unawareness can lead to some overlooking and ignoring the materials besides the vessel. Maybe they saw some conductors but they throw them away.

Although the passage uses the thesis of the main function of the copper cylinders as the holding the scared text as one of the reasons which lead to its conclusion, the professor doubts the truth of this claim. As the lecturers states although the original purpose of these vessels were the containers, it is possible that they used the iron and liquid; as a result, adapted them for another usage.

Finally, the lecturer argues the useless of Batteries. Meanwhile the passage presumes that there were no any devices to require the electricity, thus, these vessels were out the function as batteries. Based upon the professor's evidences this subject and its electrical power had the utilities such as magic with wild and invisible shock, and the medical usages for the reliving pains.