extinction large mammals
In this argument, the author concludes that climate change and other natural factors contribute to extinction of some large mammals. To support this conclusion, the author points out that lack of human and large mammals’ relationships and failure to find bones of large mammals. It is easy to understand that author is eager to explain the extinction, but it is fraught with dubious assumptions. So, the author's argument is problematic in several aspects.
A threshold problem with the argument involves human's contact with large mammals. The writer fails to provide any evidence to support this assumption. Even though direct relationships are unfound, other indirect relationships may abound. Perhaps, human cut down forests and damage the grasslands, resulting in mammals' loss of their habitats. Or even human compete with mammals for their food, which inflict a great damage on survival of mammals. Given these possible scenarios, the facts about no relationships between human and those giant mammals proves nothing about author's idea. In order to better evaluate the recommendation, I would need more information about ancestors' lifestyle and interaction with mammals.
In addition, the author demonstrates that only fish bones are discarded but not bones of large mammals. Therefore, it is impossible for huma to hunt for those large mammals. However, the author also provides no evidence to support the assumption. Nobody can exclude the possibility that our ancestors have had special rituals to burn those large mammals' bones to ash, regarding it as way of sacrifice. On top of that, maybe some bones are not excavated now. Eventually, only some fish bones can be successfully disguised till now. To reinforce the argument, the author would have to more information about older generations' diet and their attitudes towards large mammals.
Finally, the author shed light on the opinion that climate change or some environmental factors are accountable for this extinction. Absent to the contrary, it is quite possible that large mammals had become endangered in the sense that they could not adapt to evolvement. It is likely that they are accustomed to walking on four limbs but gradually transform to rely on only two of them. Because of unsuccessful adaptation, they fail to walk quickly and are readily caught by predators. Gradually, some specific large mammals are dying out. To convince me that natural factors matter a lot, the author must provide clear evidence about relationships between the number of large mammals and climate data.
In a nutshell, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To better access the strength of each of the author's three unwarranted claims respectively, I would need to know the true mammal-human relationship, their diet and comprehensive climate data.
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2337 1500
No. of Different Words: 226 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.228 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.783 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 143 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.192 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.798 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.423 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.3 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.482 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 405, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...aught with dubious assumptions. So, the authors argument is problematic in several aspe...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 408, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'great damage'.
Suggestion: great damage
...h mammals for their food, which inflict a great damage on survival of mammals. Given these pos...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, may, regarding, so, therefore, in addition, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2405.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38031319911 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8888093888 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503355704698 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 745.2 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.1056143088 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1923076923 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.290181405147 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0764410920805 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0881937381418 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16289749455 0.128457276422 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0690702998024 0.0628817314937 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.