Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of
the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become
extinct. Y et humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions, because there is
no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Further ,
archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded,
but they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humans cannot
have hunted the mammals. Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor
must have caused the species' extinctions.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the
argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author assumes that humans arrived in the Kaliko island, and the mammals on the island are on extinction. But he also assumes that there is no link between humans and mammals extinction. Therefore, he finally assumes that there must be climate change, due to which the mammals are on extinction. This decision made by without any substantial evidence seems to lack evidence so further scrutiny with substantial evidence to make his conclusion valid.
Firstly, the assumes that humans cannot have been a factor in the animal's extinction, because there is no evidence that humans had any significant contact with the mammals. To make this evidence true and valid, the author must have provided more information and evidence that makes the argument valid. So the author must study about the link between humans and mammals extinction.
Secondly, to cite this, the author provides the survey which the archaeologist had done, and found bones of fishes and does not find bones of mammals. So, he quickly reach on the conclusion. But there may be the possibility that the bones of mammals were washed out by the sea. There may be the chance that humans have crushed the bones of mammals. So, the author must seek these other factors due to which the archaeologists were unable to find the bones of mammals.
Furthermore, he also assumes that climate change must be the factor for mammals extinction. But he fails to provide evidence and factor like rising in sea level, global warming, etc, and simply reach into the conclusion which makes his conclusion valid. There may be other factors like diseases due to which the mammals have been extinction
So, to reach into the final conclusion the above factors must be considered.
In sum, the argument is rife with holes, and to make this argument valid the author must provide many pieces of evidence about the mammal's extinction, and human's role for extinction. The author must examine that the report made by the archaeologist is right or wrong. Therefore, if the author is able to examine all pieces of evidence provided above then the conclusion made by author is valid.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 357 350
No. of Characters: 1724 1500
No. of Different Words: 136 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.347 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.829 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.43 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 121 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 48 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.353 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.4 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.4 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.208 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 67, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...humans cannot have been a factor in the animals extinction, because there is no evidenc...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 167, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'reaches'.
Suggestion: reaches
...t find bones of mammals. So, he quickly reach on the conclusion. But there may be the...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 132, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'mammals'' or 'mammal's'?
Suggestion: mammals'; mammal's
...ovide many pieces of evidence about the mammals extinction, and humans role for extinct...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1773.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 357.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96638655462 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5216743596 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 204.123752495 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.389355742297 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 561.6 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.464666178 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.5 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8333333333 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.27777777778 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144453967157 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0616002114452 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0756460455174 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0820632625358 0.128457276422 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0481328803046 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.97 8.32208582834 84% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 98.500998004 55% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.