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 author concludes that extinction of mammals in Kaliko islands is due to climate change or environmental factors and not because of humans presence at that time. His assertion is based on evidence that humans had no contact with mammals and archaeologists have not found any proof indicating the role of human beings. However, the author's conclusion relies on three unfounded assumptions, that if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the author presumes that lack of proof regarding no human contact with large mammals actually indicate that in reality this was the case. It is possible that the scientific methods that are currently being adopted by the archaeologists is inadequate for establishing a proof that humans had contact with these mammals. Even if we assume that these tools are indeed adequate, Perhaps the archaeologists are just looking at wrong places in the island. Maybe they have done some error in their findings and analysis and thus may have reached a wrong conclusion that humans had no contact withe these mammals. If either of these scenarios is true, then the author's argument that humans had no contact with other mammals in kaliko islands may not hold water.
Second of all, the author assumes that in future archaeologists will find no sites which may contain bones of large mammals. Perhaps the archaeologists have just begun to collect for evidences and thus far they have only been able to find sites containing fish bones. If given more time, they may be able to find locations of mammal bones as well. Maybe the remains of these large mammals are present inside dense forests where they usually lived and finding ruins in such a difficult terrain and environment is not that easy. Perhaps they may have found the fish bones by riverside which was easily accessible to the archaeologists. If this is the case, then the authors assertion that humans may not have hunted mammals is significantly weakened.
Third of all, the author presumes that the only alternate cause for the extinction of large mammals apart from humans is climate change or environment factors. Even if we assume that humans were not responsible for the extinction of these large mammals, many other potential reasons may explain this. Maybe the large mammals suffered from a disease outbreak and perished. Perhaps the extinction of these mammals was caused by some other carnivorous species that might have arrived during that timeline and hunted them. In these scenarios, the authors argument that the extinction of these mammals was due to climatic factors does not hold.
In conclusion, the author will need to answer the above three questions, so that validity of his argument that environment factors are the cause for extinction of large mammals in Kaliko islands can be further evaluated.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 468 350
No. of Characters: 2353 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.651 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.028 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.642 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.37 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.559 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 335, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... the role of human beings. However, the authors conclusion relies on three unfounded as...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 518, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ve done some error in their findings and analysis and thus may have reached a wro...
^^
Line 3, column 669, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...er of these scenarios is true, then the authors argument that humans had no contact wit...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 193, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...have just begun to collect for evidences and thus far they have only been able to...
^^
Line 5, column 666, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ologists. If this is the case, then the authors assertion that humans may not have hunt...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 544, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nd hunted them. In these scenarios, the authors argument that the extinction of these m...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, however, if, look, may, regarding, second, so, then, third, thus, well, apart from, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2401.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 468.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13034188034 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69007080457 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438034188034 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 744.3 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => 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: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.4617318739 57.8364921388 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 120.05 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.4 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.254442858692 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0877315801771 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0571568247293 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161824759096 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0435515029329 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.