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 of the argument avers that people who arrived in the Kaliko islands about 7000 years ago did not cause the extinction of large animals which used to inhabited the island's forests owing to the fact that no evidence which points on the significant interaction between the animals and the mankind has not been found. Consequently, the only possible explanation is that climate change or other environmental factor caused the extinction. This conclusion is buttressed by evidence which should be carefully analyzed in order to gauge the soundness of the argument.
First of all, we definitely know that no direct interaction between the large mammals and humankind has been found. However, perhaps humans may impact on the animals by indirect means. For example, they may bring some other species such as dogs, pigs, or cats which may hunt and eat the same food at the extinct animals, in this case, these domestic animals, which were introduced by the mankind caused, food shortage and consequenly, it may lead to the large mammals extinction.
Moreover, the history has displayed that mankind usually brings with it viruses and diseases. Probably, the local species contracted a virus such as plague from arrived humans or animals which were taken with them. Thus, it may be the real cause of the current situation.
Additionally to it, we certainly know that humans ate fish due to the fact that many sites with fish's bones have been found by researchers. Maybe fish was food for the island mammals and thus our extensive consumption of the fish may bring famine for the extinct species. Moreover, the impact of people's consumption of fish may be more elaborated, for example, fish may be the main source of food of other animals which were eaten by the extinct mammals. In both cases, mankind's action led to the extinction.
Besides, mankind may change the island's environment. Did these ancient people plant wheat or rice? If the answer is "yes", they will need land for farming. prehistoric people often used fire to burn down forests and prepare the land for farming, in this case, men's a actions may lead to the destruction of forests which were the home for these extinct species. The animals deprived of their natural environment have died out.
In conclusion, the author of the argument asserts that the mankind is blameless for the extinction of the large mammals which used to inhabit the Kaliko islands because to evidence which point of the direct interaction between the species has been found. However, many factors which may implicitly influent on the mammals were neglected by the writer such us introducing new species, viruses or diseases. Thus our analysis has displayed that the argument and conclusion are not warranted.
Comments
Hello, my reader. Today is my
Hello, my reader. Today is my day off, so I have plethora of time which I may devote to the argument essays.
I have a question to you which has consistently bother me. How should I understand what part of argument should I accept and what I must criticize?
For example:
1) 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.
In this argument I accept that "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"
the second example: "An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid—a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil—as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
In this case I can and should argue against: "Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work"
I said that not fish but something else led to the positive result and that people may fake the colds.
I hardly may distinct where I should accept and where I must refute the statement. I assume that for your who is a professional who check tens or even hundreds of essay each day it seems to be obvious. But I really need help due to the fact that I have not managed to catch the difference between these type of arguments. I believe that ETS must give me some hints and clues to distinct them.
My assumptions: it may be language used in the prompt or the common sense of the argument. Perhaps some other factors exist.
I will be glad if you explain me it and give some examples.
I am sorry for this arrogant request but I am desperately need to understand it. Without it my exam is a mere gambling.
Thank you.
Eugene.
read the requirements first:
read the requirements first:
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 conclusion is: 'Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.', here we need to argue against it. we accept that "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", but this contact means 'direct contact', we should find out other indirect ways for contact which are the arguments.
We think it is related to the understanding of the topic. There is nothing different to other topics. Put more time to understand the topic before you go argument.
Can you try this essay, which
Can you try this essay, which is similar to the above essay:
Fossil evidence indicates that the blompus-an extremely large, carnivorous land mammal-inhabited the continent of Pentagoria for tens of thousands of years until its sudden decline and ultimate extinction about twelve thousand years ago. Scientists have determined that the extinction coincided with a period of significant climate change and with the arrival of the first humans. Some scholars theorize that the climate change so altered the distribution of plants and animals in the environment that the food chain upon which the blompus depended was irretrievably disrupted. Others contend that predation by humans is the more plausible explanation for the rapid population decline.
Write a response in which you discuss specific evidence that could be used to decide between the proposed explanations above.
----------------
Read carefully before you write.
Thank you. I will try it.
Thank you. I will try it. Your help is tremendous. Thank you.
Sentence: For example, they may bring some other species such as dogs, pigs, or cats which may hunt and eat the same food at the extinct animals, in this case, these domestic animals, which were introduced by the mankind caused, food shortage and consequenly, it may lead to the large mammals extinction.
Error: consequenly Suggestion: consequently
Sentence: However, many factors which may implicitly influent on the mammals were neglected by the writer such us introducing new species, viruses or diseases.
Error: influent Suggestion: No alternate word
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- somehow duplicated to argument 1
argument 4 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 457 350
No. of Characters: 2247 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.624 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.917 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.481 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.85 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.65 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.558 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5