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.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The arguer avers that only possible explanation of extinction of several species of mammal in the Kaliko Islands is excessive hunting of humans. This conclusion is based on evidence which should be carefully scrutinized in order to find alternative explanations of it.
First of all, we are told that numerous of sites with fish bones have been found by scientists; perhaps ancient island's dwellers excessively consumed fish and thus they disturbed ecological balance as a result Kaliko's mammals which mainly ate fish starved and then died out because of it. In this case, humans’ actions indirectly led to the denouement.
The second evidence which is given to us is that archaeologists have discovered primitive tools, for instance, stone knives which may be used for hunting. However, these tools may be used for slaughtering and processing domestic animals such as cows, sheep, goats, pigs and rabbits which perhaps were taken by humans on the islands. These arrived animals, which perhaps consume the same kind of food as local mammals such as grass and leaves of threes, competed for food with the native mammals. Thus the shortage of food supply may bring the death to native mammals. Moreover, the domestic animals may bring with them diseases to which local animals had no immune and thus interaction between them led to spreading of illness and extinction of the ingenuous mammals.
What is more, the extinction may be caused by change of weather or climate of islands, there is well-known fact that many of species which have ever inhabited the planet today are considered as defunct. The Earth’s weather has patterns and period of warm climate turned into cold one than the cycle is repeated. Perhaps, climatic conditions of the region where island is located was becoming colder and colder and native mammals which did not manage to adapt to these novel harsh conditions has died out because of it.
In conclusion, the argument claims that only cogent explanation of the extinction of several species of island’s mammals is excessive hunting of human beings; however, the evidence which was used by the writer has several alternative explanations and thus likeliness exists that indirect actions of arrived humans such as consumption of fish, or introduction of domesticated animals may be a real cause of the extinction. Moreover, the writer hastily excludes climate change as a possible culprit on this extinction. In other words, the culpa of mankind in extinction of island’s mammals is not proved.
Comments
Hello.
Hello.
Frankly speaking I did not think about this evidence from this prospect.
So, I want to try to develop your idea.
"researchers have uncovered simple tools, such as stone knives, that could be used for hunting."
"stone knives may be used for hunting, why not, the thing is that this hunting may not cause the extinction since the size of large mammal species is big."
Furthermore, the archaeologists have unearthed some primitive tools such as stone knives. However, the such tools often used by aboriginal people for processing skins of killed animals due to tool's characteristics which rarely allowed using them for hunting. For example, the distance to prey should be short and the size of animals ought be relatively small, for instance, it is hard to imagine that such fast and strong mammals as gazelle or deer may be hunted down by the stone knife. Consequently, we may conclude that only a small part of game may be hunted by the findings.
Is this correct?
Does my example go beyond the scope?
Thank you.
No, it is wrong:
No, it is wrong:
'the such tools often used by aboriginal people for processing skins of killed animals due to tool's characteristics which rarely allowed using them for hunting. For example, the distance to prey should be short and the size of animals ought be relatively small, ...'
why you think 'people for processing skins...'. ?
You can argue like this:
first of all, stone knives may not be used for hunting;
second, suppose they are used for hunting, those large mammal species will have enough meat for people to consume in a long time which will not cause the extinction.
Hello.
Hello.
From my point of view, any knife from stone one to iron knife does not suit for hunting because of necessity of short distance to use it. The hunters might have trown these knives but stone tools were expensive and often were given from father to son etc. I imagine that I would try to kill for instance elephan or deer by a knife but these animals are extremely strong and dangerous even if I managed to hurt it badly, it would live enouth to injured me. However, primitive people may use traps to caught animals and then use knife to slaughter them. About processing skins, animal skins were main matirial which was widly used for many purposes. And I read that stone tools were used to prepare skins for future usage.
Do i manage to support my position?
I know that I should not use external knowledge, perhaps it is not complete.
p.s. people of stone age had stone tools for hunting usually such as arrowheads and spears. These tools may be used from distance.
Thank your for your answer, I deeply appreciate your help. Your student, Eugene.
No, we don't discuss how they
No, we don't discuss how they use the knife for hunting. We only need to know will the hunting cause the big animals extinction or not.
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not exactly. stone knives may be used for hunting, why not, the thing is that this hunting may not cause the extinction since the size of large mammal species is big.
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 410 350
No. of Characters: 2067 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.5 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.041 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.621 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.112 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.597 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5