- UID
- 455878
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
DATE: 9/8/2013 WORDS: 273
The lecture is mainly discussing about the usage of the vessels that had been excavated. The professor says that the vessels may be used as electric batteries in ancient times, which contradicts what are stated in the reading passage. And in the lecture, the professor gives three specific points to support her opinion.
First, in contrast to the argument stated in the reading passage that the vessels are not attached to any electricity conductors such as metal wires, the professor says that there may be some electricity conductors were attaching to the vessels. Because the vessels are found by local people not archaeologists, they might not recognize the metal wires around the vessel or just not give them to the archaeologist.
Second, contradicting the point made in the reading passage that the copper cylinders inside the jars are like copper cylinders found in the ruins of Seleucia and so they may be used for holding scrolls, the lecture holds a different idea. The professor contends that this similarity cannot prove anything. It is likely that the copper cylinders could be used for generating electricity and then adapted to other use.
Finally, while the reading passage argues that there were no use for ancient people to generate electricity, the lecture maintains a totally different viewpoint. The professor says that the electricity generated by the vessels could be used as micro shock, which can be regarded as an invisible or magic power. Also, it might be used to heal patient to relieve the pain just as what doctors do today.
In sum, the contents in the reading passage are totally refuted by the lecture.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-9-8 15:48:47
收藏
收藏
楼主
