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' extinctio

Essay topics:

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.

In this assertion the speaker indicates that it was some climate change or other environmental factor rather than anthropological ones that extirpate large mammal species of Kaliko Island. To substantiate the conclusion, the speaker cites that there is no evidence that humans had any significant contact with the mammals. In addition, an archaeological discovery is adduced that no bones of large mammals were found in expected areas, from which the author derives that humans cannot have hunted the mammals. However, the conclusion might suffer risks of unconvincing considering existence of certain flaws in the assumption of the speaker.

To begin with, by pointing out that bones of large mammals are missing in the sites where bones of fish had been discarded, the speaker assumes that all bones of preys from hunting must have been discarded together, which might not always hold true. Given that the discussed mammals are likely to be much larger than fish, which undoubtedly leading to larger bones, thus it is entirely plausible that ancient human decided to make further use of those bones instead of discarding them like they did to the considerably smaller fish bones. Bones of large mammals can serve as perfect materials in making tools like spears and hammers for instance. Therefore, the evidence the speaker provides is not tenable enough to determine that human never hunted the mammals, and the speaker will have to combine other archaeological evidence to preclude the possibility we discussed.

Secondly, even if the notice that human never hunted the mammals is proved to be true by extra evidence, it is still dubious to state that humans had no significant contact with the mammals, since a smallest intervene in ecosystem can arouse irreparable upheavals, let alone the arrival of humans. When exploring the islands and attempting to find suitable sites for settlement, there are possibilities that humans took over the habitats in which the mammals used to live. Besides losing its home and were forced to move to less-favored place, human activities like hunting can seriously reduce the number of particular animals which once constituted major source of the mammals’ food. In a word, although it is likely that human never make direct contact with the mammals, the effect of human activities upon those species cannot be simply overlooked, which can indirectly change the structure of an ecosystem and bring disasters to a portion of other species. The changes human brought to Kaliko Island after their arrival should be carefully inspected otherwise the anthropological factors cannot be denied.

Finally, the fact that whether the large mammals truly encountered extinction remains a question considering lack of details in the speaker’s statement. By validating this phenomenon, the speaker cites that most large mammal species disappeared in a certain period. However, extinction might not be the only interpretation to the disappearance, namely migration and evolutions probably happened instead. We have discussed that human activities might force the mammals migrate to a new place and consequently had to adopted to the strange environment. As the living condition changed, the process of natural selection changed respectively, which gradually changed frequency of several genes of the mammals and thus new species appeared. Given that 3000 years is quite a long time, the odds are great that this evolution actually took place. To justify the extinction of mammals, the speaker needs to take a closer look at the species now existing on the islands and determine whether those animals were once the mammals he suggests to have extinct.
To sum up, the speaker’s indication that human had nothing to do with the extinction of large mammal species in Kaliko Island is unconvincing do to due to several false assumption. In order to strengthen his conclusion, the speaker needs to offer thorough evidence about human activities and exam their potential effects on the mammals, besides, biological researches are in need to preclude the possibilities of evolutions.

Average: 4.9 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 198, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use 'the' with the superlative.
Suggestion: the
...ificant contact with the mammals, since a smallest intervene in ecosystem can aro...
Line 7, column 1028, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggests having'.
Suggestion: suggests having
... those animals were once the mammals he suggests to have extinct. To sum up, the speaker's...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, consequently, finally, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, for instance, in addition, to begin with, to sum up

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 30.0 13.6137724551 220% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 96.0 55.5748502994 173% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3480.0 2260.96107784 154% => OK
No of words: 650.0 441.139720559 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35384615385 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04926703274 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86827329869 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 320.0 204.123752495 157% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492307692308 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 1100.7 705.55239521 156% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 4.22255489022 308% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.0749109027 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.181818182 119.503703932 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.5454545455 23.324526521 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.45454545455 5.70786347227 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => 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: 0.300843784371 0.218282227539 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0912393735986 0.0743258471296 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.057848516597 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181747788032 0.128457276422 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0434460082117 0.0628817314937 69% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 172.0 98.500998004 175% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?

Write the essay in 30 minutes.

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.

argument 1 -- not OK

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- not exactly

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: 22 15
No. of Words: 650 350
No. of Characters: 3394 1500
No. of Different Words: 305 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.049 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.222 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.746 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 259 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 208 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 117 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 90 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.545 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.107 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.486 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5