According to the author, extinction of large mammels in Kaliko islands was due to excessive hunting by humans. The author gives several evidence to support this claim. Some fish bones were found by the archeologists in several sites in Kaliko islands. Author assumes that if humans hunted fish they must have hunted mammels also. Several tools such as rock knives were also found there. It is assumed that these tools were for hunting. Also the timing betweem arrival of humans and extinction of mammels is also suspicious to many. The author has made many unwarrented assumptions to reach this conclusion. In the followng paragraphs these conclusions will be studied and understood and their effectiveness will be understood.
Author unfairly assumes that people who eat fishes must also eat mammels. Author does not take into account the difference in style of hunting of fishs and large mammels. Maybe these humans prefered fishes more than mammels. Also hunting large mammels is much more dangerous than fishing. Perhaps these early setllers found fishing easier therefore a more charming source of food. Also mammels alive are can be very useful to humans. For example, cows give milk, which people can use, dogs provide companionship and protection which humans may like, and many more things. If any of the above is true than the assumption made by the author does not hold true, hence his claim will be false.
Another thing the author assumes is that the tools found by the archeologists were for hunting. There are several other uses of tools, such as farming, creating fire, cutting trees for woods, etc. The author made the mistake of not taking these things into account. Maybe these tools had some other purpose such as creating machineries, vehicles, houses, roads, etc. Maybe these tools were for their protection from other humans and not for hunting. Perhaps humans used these tools to gut the fishes or for something else entirely. If any of the above scenarios are true then authors assumption will once again become invalid and so will his claim.
Finally the author assumes that humans used to fish based on the remains of the fishes found. Did he, for once, think that maybe these remains were not from fishing but from something else. Maybe their used to be a river in those areas which later dried up due to less rain or more sun. Maybe fishes living in these water bodies could not move to a safer place and died due to the lack of water. This would explain their remains in some areas of Kaliko. Maybe the mammels used to eat fishes. Perhaps they used to store fishes in their habitats. This would also explain the remains found by the archeologists. These scenarios would again make the assumption made by the author false and weaken his main conclusion.
Hence from the above points it is clear that the assumption made by the author is false. Maybe if some more evidences are provided then we could evaluate the situation furthor. But right now we do not have enough to support the authors claim that humans were responsible for the extinction of large mammels.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 12 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 34 15
No. of Words: 527 350
No. of Characters: 2511 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.791 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.765 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.226 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.72 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.559 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.284 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.284 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 129, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[8]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun evidence seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'some evidence'.
Suggestion: some evidence
...ive hunting by humans. The author gives several evidence to support this claim. Some fish bones ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 325, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...nted fish they must have hunted mammels also. Several tools such as rock knives were...
^^^^
Line 1, column 437, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...umed that these tools were for hunting. Also the timing betweem arrival of humans an...
^^^^
Line 2, column 225, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...mans prefered fishes more than mammels. Also hunting large mammels is much more dang...
^^^^
Line 2, column 382, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...refore a more charming source of food. Also mammels alive are can be very useful to...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
... become invalid and so will his claim. Finally the author assumes that humans used to ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 714, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r false and weaken his main conclusion. Hence from the above points it is clear ...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...alse and weaken his main conclusion. Hence from the above points it is clear that ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, hence, if, may, so, then, therefore, another thing, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2571.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 527.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87855787476 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.30073377791 2.78398813304 83% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432637571157 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 795.6 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 36.0 19.7664670659 182% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 22.8473053892 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.4064098037 57.8364921388 42% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 71.4166666667 119.503703932 60% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 14.6388888889 23.324526521 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.97222222222 5.70786347227 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 20.0 4.67664670659 428% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.101842295465 0.218282227539 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0307328517743 0.0743258471296 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0399905886752 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0693958975408 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359522403459 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.9 14.3799401198 62% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 48.3550499002 136% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 12.197005988 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.43 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.94 8.32208582834 83% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 12.3882235529 44% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.1389221557 68% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.