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 author of the argument purportedly highlights that the major reason of extinction of mammal species is human's hunting when they arrived in Kaliloe Island 7000 years ago. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious.
The first assumption that lacks some semblance of truth and can be overtly impugned is that humans arrived in Kaliloe by 7000 years ago and by 3000 years many species extinct enormously. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since there are many reasons that could result in extinction and the author does not provide any information about extinction. In fact, climate change, the paucity of foods, natural disasters like earthquake or flood and so forth, may play a consequential role in the extinction of mammal species. Indeed, there is no cogent reason to prove allegedly that human intervention is the only factor of mammal extinction.
The author also attributes that archaeologists have found majorities of a site that represent bones of fishes and prove that early humans relied on fish and hunting. Although it might seem tenable at a face, it has some defects since there would many reasons for remaining of bones. Indeed, there is a possibility that fishes died because of water contamination or drought. These two factors are enough to die out the population of any species. Alongside that maybe ecological mutation be the other reason for fishes' bones, who knows? Even if human relied on fishes, it is not logical to assume that they feed on fish for thousands of years.
Putting the two previous assumptions aside, there is still room for doubt. As set forth by the author researchers have discovered simple tools like stone knives that early people used for hunting. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged since there might be another purpose to use stone knives. Maybe they used this tools in order to protect themselves against attacks, or maybe religious value, who knows? Also, we all know that hunting needs many skills and the author does not provide any data about early humans' skills. Maybe they did not have enough skill to hunt and used stone knives just for other purposes.
Having scrutinized the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the author has ignored the number of assumption, the presence of which could strengthen the author's claim.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the arguments are not on the right track. The topic asked 'discuss one or more alternative explanations', some of other explanations like:
1. human beings may bring diseases to that area
2. human beings eat fishes which are food sources for large mammal species too
3. human beings may change the eco-system by which the large mammal species depend on
...
-------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 394 350
No. of Characters: 1939 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.455 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.921 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.48 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 132 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 52 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.737 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.389 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.517 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.043 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, then, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1992.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 394.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05583756345 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55098238809 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535532994924 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 609.3 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4851211502 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.842105263 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7368421053 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.89473684211 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.164191870682 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.04860441527 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673993264757 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0991496359664 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0723743371039 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.