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 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 suggested claim that humans are the main reason of the extinction of the various mammal species via too much hunting seems axiomatic at a glance. However, the author's argument relies heavily on gratuitous assumptions that calls for alternative explanations of the phenomena.
To begin with, the author conjectures that previous archaeological findings that indicate early humans' general tendency of reliance upon both fishing and hunting can be appropriately applied to the case of Kaliko Island. Nevertheless, the author does not cite any evidence regarding dates and discoveries the findings are based on, which means the author's claim is overgeneralization. It is entirely possible that the findings the author is referring to are outdated; also, it is not verified if a few samples from the findings can reflect the conditions of Kaliko Island. Humans resided in Kaliko Island might have primarily consumed vegetables and fruits contrary to the results of the cited findings. Without proper evidence, the alternate explanation might be accepted.
Second, the author refers to bones of fish as an evidence of hunting activities of humans of Kaliko. However, there is no evidence to manifest the exact cause of death of those fish. It could be due to severe earthquake, dramatic climate change, or just natural death. It is hasty to judge that humans killed those fish just by looking at discarded fish bones. Moreover, even if it turns out that humans have hunted them, this does not give any justification that humans would have hunted large mammals as well. It could be that humans were more accessible to water and not the forest area. The author needs to give more detailed information to reject alternative hypotheses.
Furthermore, the author cites findings of researchers, which are simple tools like stone knives, to corroborate the assertion. There is, nontheless, no evidence that those tools were used for hunting. Additionally, it seems far-fetched to suppose that those simple tools were utilized to kill large mammals. Those discovered tools may have been used for purpose of hunting small animals, carving woods, or cutting fruits. With the amount and depth of the information given, the findings hardly explains that those simple tools would have effectively slaughtered large mammals. Thus, the author should provide solid explanation to rebut the alternative opinions.
All in all, the author's contention is not valid, and alternative explanations seem more probable. To strengthen the argument, the author has to provide more in depth information regarding hunting culture of Kaliko Island, cause of death of discovered fish, and the exact purpose of simple tools.
Comments
Yes, but this one is unstated
Yes, but this one is unstated/stated assumptions. I put it up again because it was not right for the alternative explanation one(the other one). Could you please still give feedback according to the assumptions question.
Even though you changed the
Even though you changed the topic, there are still issues on argument 1:
--------------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
--------------------
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. //maybe before Humans arrived in the island, the large mammal species started to extinct, for example, disease.
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. //your argument 2
Furthermore, researchers have uncovered simple tools, such as stone knives, that could be used for hunting. //your argument 3
----------------
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 164, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ems axiomatic at a glance. However, the authors argument relies heavily on gratuitous a...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...lternative opinions. All in all, the authors contention is not valid, and alternativ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, so, then, thus, well, as to, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2280.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36470588235 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82627905331 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 716.4 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.2452745658 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.636363636 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3181818182 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.04545454545 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.21453020517 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0613804039171 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0654804261967 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115617313966 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0614927523251 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.