Tpo25#1

The reading passage provides three reasons to support the claim that the copper cylinder found in the clay jars discovered in Iraq were not used as electric batteries. However, the professor believes that all the arguments mentioned in the reading are unconvincing and the fact that they are used for electricity can be correct.

To begin with, the article implies that there are no metal wires found near the vessels which indicate that they are not batteries. On the other hand, the professor points out that the people who discovered these vessels were local people, not archeologists, and they are not well trained. They might found other objects like wires or conductors, but they are not interested in them and threw them away.

Secondly, the author posits that there is a similarity between these cylinders and other copper cylinders found in the ruins of Seleucia, which is used for holding scrolls of sacred texts. This indicates that they are used the same way. The professor, in contrast, explains that it is true that they are similar but this is not a proof that the copper cylinder found in Iraq were not used as batteries. He mentions that these cylinders may be originally designed for this purpose but later someone discovered that it may be used as batteries. This may be an invention of the first battery.

Finally, the reading contends that there were no devices that needed electricity during the ancient period so having batteries were unuseful. The professor opposes this point by explaining that there might be other uses for batteries like using them for mild shock or tingled sensation. He states that some people mi=ay use them for magical purposes. In addition, he points out that in modern medicine,they use a mild electric current to stimulate muscles and reduce pains and aches so ancient doctors might use them the same way.