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 this prompt argues that the arrival of Humans in the Kaliko Islands caused the eventual downfall of larger mammals that had resided on the plot of land before their arrival. He/she makes abstract assumptions that offer no delineation into the granular details that might prove his/her position, asserting things such as: A lack of evidence proves that humans could not have caused such a downfall, the carcasses of fish were found but no mammal remains have been manifested and the writer goes onto state that it simply must have been other climatic or environment shifts that caused the specie's decimation.
The prompt states "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." This supposition offers evokes an intriguing question: If there is no proof, how are we sure that mammals were on the Kaliko Islands to begin with? There very well may have been an abundance of mammals on this island, but with out any elaboration from the author, the statement is interpreted as nothing more than a supposition. Providing cogent proof that mammals were denizens of the Kaliko Islands emboldens the idea that humans caused their extinction.
Further, the author claims that there has been numerous sites discovered evidencing fish corpes, but no such thing relating to mammals. Surely this represents his/her strongest point, but it offers no insight into any inhabitance of mammals on the island at all. Humans could be solely responsible for large mammals extinctions, but if they arrived after mammals were already inhabitants, the remains of animals who had died before would have been discovered without a doubt. This further questions the idea that mammals were on the island at all. The presumptive statement invokes the notion that mammals may not have been on the island at all before humans arrived.
Lastly, the authors final declaration that the demise of large animals must have been caused by "some climate change or other environment factors" is pure conjecture. It misleads readers without any arguable basis. There is a large discrepancy of proof that calls into question whether large animals were on the island in the first place; no remains were found and somehow these animals stumbled onto an islet in the middle of the ocean. Perhaps these animals migrate together, and managed to make it ashore where they might not have to fight with humans for food. To presume that environmental factors caused the species extinction is misleading.
The author's assertions about the disappearing of the large mammals that existed on the Kaliko Islands may be accurate. Contrastly, he/she presents no verifiable facts, and the assumptions made are too substantial to rely on.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 409, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
...bundance of mammals on this island, but with out any elaboration from the author, the st...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, lastly, may, so, well, such as, to begin with, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2375.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 457.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19693654267 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62958155163 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492341356674 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 738.0 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 93.7122888398 57.8364921388 162% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.705882353 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8823529412 23.324526521 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76470588235 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320288027701 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110947585579 0.0743258471296 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0778840253469 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188892004518 0.128457276422 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0625739421304 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 27.0 12.3882235529 218% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.