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 were extinct. Previous archaeological findings have suggested that early humans generally relied on both fishing and hunting for food; since archaeologists have discovered numerous sites in the Kaliko Islands where the bones of fish were discarded, it is likely that the humans also hunted the mammals. Furthermore, researchers have uncovered simple tools, such as stone knives, that could be used for hunting. The only clear explanation is that humans caused the extinction of the various mammal species through excessive hunting.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
In the given argument author suggests that humans caused the extinction of the various mammal species through excessive hunting. The author proves his contention through the archaeologists’ and researchers' findings. Although the archaeologists’ and researchers’ findings do support his theory, several questions can be raised about the author's generalisation that humans’ excessive hunting is the reason for extinction of the various mammal species. Moreover, there could be many other reasons why several mammal species got extinct; these have been addressed in the following paragraphs.
Firstly, the author states that humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands 7000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands were extinct. The author has held humans reprehensible for the extinction of mammals, although there are many other possibilities for their extinction. Natural calamities like forest fire, earthquake, volcanic eruption can also be the reasons for extinction of mammal species. Thus, the author needs to verify whether there is an alternative explanation for his claim.
Afterwards, the author has mentioned, archaeological findings which suggest that the early humans generally relied on both fishing and hunting for food, from the findings of discarded bones of fish in numerous sites of Kaliko Islands. The archeologists have inferred from the findings of discarded bones of fish that early humans hunted mammals along with fishes for food. Like fishes, the archaeologists didn’t find the discarded bones of the mammals. Hence, it is possibly true that early humans never hunted the mammals for food.
Lastly, the author bases his conclusion by providing additional information that researchers have found simple tools, such as stone knives, that could be used for hunting. However, it is also possible that humans used them for different purposes like truncating trees, chopping vegetables, etc. rather than the hunting of mammals. And, if this is true, then humans could not be held responsible for their extinction.
Finally, it may be concluded that if the above-mentioned cases were to be true then humans might never have hunted the mammals. The author of this argument needs to work on the alternative explanations stated above before claiming humans for the extinction of the various mammal species by excessive hunting.
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 373 350
No. of Characters: 1994 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.395 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.346 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.733 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.526 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.38 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.613 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.147 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 337, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...veral questions can be raised about the authors generalisation that humans’ excessive h...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, so, then, thus, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2058.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 372.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.53225806452 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87601746714 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.497311827957 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 603.9 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7754820447 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.333333333 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38888888889 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.160688860714 0.218282227539 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0579384706675 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0465476110113 0.0701772020484 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100434679649 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0417787541581 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.