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. Yet 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 argument states that humans cannot be a factor in species' extinction in Kaliko islands based on few assumptions. Based on few assumptions, it concludes that some climate or other environmental factor has caused the species' extinction. If the assumptions are invalid, then it undermines the validity of the argument.
Firstly, it assumes that humans are not factor in species' extinction as there is no evidence that humans have been in contact with the mammals. This assumption is invalid for the following factors. The first factor is there may be chances that people have not discovered those evidences where humans have been in contact with mammals. Second factor is humans need not be in significant contact to cause the species' extinction. If humans pollute the environment in Kaliko islands, then environmental pollution can cause the species' extinction and in this way humans can be indirect factor in the extinction.
Secondly, the argument assumes that humans cannot have hunted the mammals as archaeologists did not find any areas containing the bones of large mammals. There is possibility that there are hidden areas in the islands which have not been discovered by archaeologists where humans might have hunted the mammals. Thus, if the assumption is invalid, then it undermines the conclusion. Even if the assumption is valid, it cannot support the conclusion as hunting is not the only way which causes the species' extinction.
The argument concludes that humans are not a factor in species' extinction as they did not find any evidence of humans hunting the mammals and humans being in significant contact with the mammals. The argument does not take all factors which cause species' extinction into consideration. The argument does not address all the factors that cause species' extinction. It takes only two factors into consideration and concludes based on it. The conclusion and the argument on which it is based will be valid only when when there is significant evidence to support it.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 325 350
No. of Characters: 1655 1500
No. of Different Words: 113 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.246 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.092 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.761 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 95 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 54 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.118 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.833 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.394 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.157 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 287, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... species extinction into consideration. The argument does not address all the facto...
^^^
Line 7, column 508, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: when
...on which it is based will be valid only when when there is significant evidence to suppor...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 55.5748502994 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1694.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 325.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21230769231 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84669433537 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 204.123752495 58% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.366153846154 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 525.6 705.55239521 74% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.9020426843 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.6470588235 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1176470588 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.35294117647 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.280120605566 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109605560933 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0926882927458 0.0701772020484 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193779863181 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0386745713092 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.49 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 98.500998004 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.