The arrival of humans on the Kaliko Islands, based on the evidence given, might explain the extinction of the large mammal species but a few alternative factors could be thought of to explain this trend.
Firstly, within three thousand years of the arrival of humans on the Kaliko Islands, the large mammal species went extinct.
Surely we can say that when a foreign species is introduced in to a new area, due to abundance of prey, the new species can certainly wipe out the local species. But in the above case, there are certain factors which can also play a role in the extinction of the large mammal species, namely, decline in population long before the arrival of humans. The local population of large mammal species could have already been in a decline due to either scarcity of prey or overabundance of competitors. For example, it has been documented that various large species have died out due to the scarcity of prey or the prey moving to other places in search of safety. Another critical factor could be the inadvertent introduction of new and foreign diseases by the humans which could be have been instrumental in slowly killing of local large mammal species which when combined with the humans hunting these same mammals could have killed of the species.
Additionally, the mention of numerous sites in the Islands where bones of fish were discarded is important. Specifically the description of bones as belonging to fish, proves the ambiguity related to extinction of large mammals species. We do not know about how dependent, the humans were on fishing. It could have been their primary source of food thus point being that it does not link fishing and the extinction of large mammal species. The absence of plant sources as food is also duly noted. Either the plants growing in the Kaliko Islands were not consumable or humans at that point of time preferred meat.
Finally, the point of archaeologists uncovering simple tools such as the stone knives is inconsequential. The hunting of large mammal species requires larger tools such as spears due to the fact that stone knives require the wielder to go closer to the animal to attack and hurt said animal which can retaliate and hurt the humans.
The extinction of large mammal species could be attributed to the humans but not in a significant way that the only culprits were humans. There would have been certain factors that also influenced the survival of these mammal species.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- other explanations like:
maybe the fish are the main food source for large mammal species too.
argument 3 -- not OK. other explanations like:
maybe human beings use the stone knives to construct houses/shelters, while the spots are natural habitats for large mammal species.
----------------
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 02
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 418 350
No. of Characters: 2003 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.522 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.792 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.493 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 45 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.588 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.81 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.373 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.581 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.149 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 221, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'mammals'' or 'mammal's'?
Suggestion: mammals'; mammal's
...mbiguity related to extinction of large mammals species. We do not know about how depen...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 82, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a significant way" with adverb for "significant"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...uld be attributed to the humans but not in a significant way that the only culprits were humans. The...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, so, thus, for example, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2052.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 418.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90909090909 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56611038468 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.447368421053 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2102454674 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.705882353 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5882352941 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.64705882353 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.270336265686 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0977566488926 0.0743258471296 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.077847487794 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170213669788 0.128457276422 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0915091742354 0.0628817314937 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.