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.
The author claims that humans, that arrived in Kaliko islands caused the extinction of the various mammal species through excessive hunting. However, the author supports his argument with three assumptions that, if not substantiated, will dramatically weaken the assumption.
Firstly, the author assumes that only the people of Kaliko killed and hunted the large animals. It is possible that people living in the neighbouring islands were the real culprits. They hunted and caused the mammals to extinct. According to the argument, the archaeologists did not search other islands. It is likely that people of Kaliko are getting blamed for some crime their neighbour committed. If this is true, then the argument that, Kaliko people are responsible for the extinction of mammals, does not hold water.
Secondly, the author assumes that the mammals on the islands were extinct because of hunting. It possible that they couldn't survive the environmental changes over the years. If we look at the history, the reason for most of the extinction of species largely include the failure to adapt the changes in surrounding like rise in temperature, less rain and more draught. It is also possible that a natural disaster like earthquake or flood wiped out the entire species. If either of the scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn in main argument, that mammals were extinct because of excessive hunting, is significantly weakened.
Finally, how can the archaeologists relate the discovery of fish bones to the hunting of mammals? It is possible that the people of Kaliko liked to do fishing but that does not mean they also killed the mammals. Maybe they just hunt other animals and fishes. The archaeologists, deduced without any evidence, that if people Kaliko were hunting fishes, they must be hunting mammals too. Furthermore, it is also plausible that,the tools that they discovered such as stone knives were not for hunting. The tools can be used to protect or defend from wild animals or any enemy. If any of the cases is true, then author's statement is not overly persuasive.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed and rife with holes. It relies on unwarranted assumptions that, if not substantiated, will dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. If author can answer the questions above or provide some evidence, then it is possible to evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 397 350
No. of Characters: 2000 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.464 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.038 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.737 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.261 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.518 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.652 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.294 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.493 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 117, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...cause of hunting. It possible that they couldnt survive the environmental changes over ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 425, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
.... Furthermore, it is also plausible that,the tools that they discovered such as ston...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2066.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 395.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23037974684 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86080430121 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496202531646 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.49062227 57.8364921388 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 89.8260869565 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1739130435 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.34782608696 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
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: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.157632040399 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0489958486755 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582693770877 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0933864631399 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0553193129239 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.