Here the author argues that extreme level of hunting by humans is the actual cause of the extinction of different kinds of mammals in Kaliko Islands. However, the reasons given by the author for such argument are not cogent for a number of reasons.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the humans of Kaliko Islands relied on mammals along with fish for food. This assumption is made just being based on earlier archaeological findings which states that our early ancestors depended on hunting and fishing for food supply. However, only fish bones were found on the islands with no trace of mammal bones. Thus, question arises that why there were no bones of mammals if they were actually being the food source for humans? Without convincing answer to this question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.
Secondly, stone knives were discovered by academicians in the islands which must have been used for hunting mammals according to the claim made by the argument. Nevertheless, it can also be assumed that those stone knives were used by the humans for killing birds such as hens, ducks, etc. after catching them, or even for removing the scales of fish or for cutting fish caught by them instead of hunting mammals. If the argument had provided evidence of using the stone knives for killing mammals then it would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthened if the author clearly mentioned relevant facts. Perhaps the mammals migrated to some other place due to change in environment in the islands. Many assumption like this can be made but no assumption can be considered accurate without solid proof which the given argument lacks to provide.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- ??? minimum 3 arguments wanted.
--------------------
flaws:
it is out of topic, look, this is new GRE topics:
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.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 313 350
No. of Characters: 1524 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.206 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.869 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.475 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 110 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 45 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 24 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.357 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.752 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.34 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1565.0 2260.96107784 69% => OK
No of words: 313.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55244173557 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.543130990415 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 480.6 705.55239521 68% => 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: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.4823631037 57.8364921388 46% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 104.333333333 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8666666667 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.06666666667 5.70786347227 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131479213999 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0509705461214 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.052277021567 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0802494398425 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0461583895039 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => 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: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => 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.