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 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.
In the proposed explanation, the author argues that humans' arrival and subsequent excessive hunting in Kaliko Islands is responsible for extinction of various mammal species. While such assumption might sound plausible at first glance, this assertion leads us to a plethora of alternative explanation that would upend the author's proposal.
First, the author assumes that humans in the Kaliko Islands should have relied on both fishing and hunting. To support his idea, the author brings some archaeological findings on early humans' reliance on both fishing and hunting. However, the author is drawing a hasty generalization on humans of Kaliko Islands. It is possible that human settlers in Kaliko live on alternative food sources such as vegetables and farming instead of fising and hunting. Without resolving such possibilities, the author should not hastily apply the general tendency to specific cases of Kaliko Islands.
Second, the author believes that Kaliko settlers might have hunted mammals. He maintains such idea by providing archaeological discoveries of fish bones. Although such evidence seems logical, the author's assertion lacks plausibility. Even though fish bones were discovered in a plethora of sites in Kaliko Islands, bones of mammals are not found yet. Even if there had been mammals' bones, existence of bones do not tell the fact that there were remains after hunting. There can be other possibilities: natural death, fights among mammals to survive, natural disasters and so on. Without ruling out such alternative explanations, the author's assertion would remain unconvincing.
Third, the author sustains his assertion by presenting the evidence such as stone knives. The author believes that thse knives could be used as hunting tools. Although this evidence may be regarded plausible, the author should keep in mind that these tools might be used as protection kits, for domestic uses, and for collecting fruits and plants for living. Mere discovery of the knives has tenuous correlation on the possibility of humans' hunting.
Last, it is possible that humans indirectly caused mammals to extinct in Kaliko Islands. Maybe increased competitors for food, loss of habitats, changed environments and other possibilities might have threatened the survival of the mammals rather than hunting. Therefore, it would be wise to widen the possibilities of extinction.
To sum, the author should provide pieces of concrete evidence to preclude other possibilities.
|Post date||Users||Rates||More about the essay|
|3 years 2 months ago||kovalana90||50||Read full essay|
|3 years 2 months ago||parags9||58||Read full essay|
|3 years 2 months ago||Gh.Ne||75||Read full essay|
|3 years 3 months ago||leanwolfketan||50||Read full essay|
|3 years 6 months ago||ing54007||70||Read full essay|
|3 years 6 months ago||ing54007||50||Read full essay|
|3 years 7 months ago||ing54007||80||Read full essay|
|3 years 7 months ago||ing54007||50||Read full essay|
|3 years 8 months ago||vardan||75||Read full essay|
|3 years 12 months ago||EugeneDubinchuk||70||Read full essay|