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. 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.
The author of prompt according to series of surmises has adduced that the extinction of mammals at the Kaliko Islands in 3000 years is irrelevant from the humans' arrival to this place in 7000 years ago. The writer is also considered other factors such as the environmental factors or the climate alteration as the cause of this incident. This assertation and proposal cannot accede as it stands since it relies on the series of unwarranted assumptions all of which can be rejected. The following paragraphs will list the most conspicuous flaws of this text.
The first issue with the text is related to the section that the writer believes that the non-existence of significant contact between the mammals and human beings on that period is a clue that people did not threaten those species. However, extinction can also occur for the sake of indirect human’s impact. For instance, the settlement of people on that period had put in danger the mammals' habitats or led to the type of alteration on that place that animals could not adapt to those alterations. Therefore, without the direct influence of mankind, the living condition of mammals got severe and unsuitable; as a result, they had been extinct after the humans' arrival.
Another problem of the proposal is about the section in which the author refers to the bones; as mentioned in the text, there are remains of fishes' bones but not mammals' bones. According to this sentence, the writer has assumed that as long as there is no excavation of mammals' bones in the side, the people on that duration had relied on the fish as the food sources; thus, the mammals were not overhunted by the people. This surmise is also shaky since first of all, there is no concrete data about the study area and excavated areas. Maybe the author has depended on a study which focused on a small area of the Kaliko Islands, and this study no fossil of mammal's bone is founded. This reference can be verified if the author explicitly depicts which areas of islands are considered. Furthermore, even if the study is a comprehensive one which covers the entire islands, this surmise cannot rear that people did not hunt the mammals. There is a possibility that people did hunt them; besides, they did use the bones of mammals for other aims such as the decorative elements. Consequently, merely focusing on finding the exact bones of mammals will be dead-ended task.
Finally, even both aforesaid surmises are verified with the logic and sound reasons, there is no piece of evidence to back that this hazardous event occurred for the sake of environmental issues or the weather conditions. As long as the author does not present a cogent statistic about the climate alteration on that period, or any magnificent variation of environmental situations; this belief that they are the main reason of this event is not a wise action. For instance, there is a feasibility that in that period the mammals were experiencing the mutation and they get evolved to another type of species. Or on that time, there was a massive migration of mammals to further region, which vacuumed the Kaliko Islands from the mammals. So, the author should provide a reliable and intelligible rearing for his final assumption about the effectiveness of environmental factors or climate condition.
To wrap it up, all the aforementioned arguments explicitly depict that this text is relied on supporting surmises are shaky and doubtful. It could be valid in case there were be a clue that people either directly or indirectly did not affect animals' living conditions. Also, the bones of animals did not have another function, and a striking environmental alteration or the weather variation has threatened the mammals.
|Post date||Users||Rates||More about the essay|
|4 years 2 weeks ago||EugeneDubinchuk||80||Read full essay|
|4 years 3 weeks ago||EugeneDubinchuk||20||Read full essay|
|4 years 3 weeks ago||Dorsa20||40||Read full essay|
|4 years 1 month ago||pandanster||20||Read full essay|
|4 years 3 months ago||porgrad16||30||Read full essay|
|4 years 4 months ago||brbrl||60||Read full essay|
|4 years 5 months ago||sanketshete||55||Read full essay|
|4 years 11 months ago||siamakd||80||Read full essay|
|5 years 3 months ago||Alexiel17||80||Read full essay|
|5 years 5 months ago||raghu18||80||Read full essay|
- tpo42 (73)
- tpo41 (81)
- Some parents offer their school-age children money for each high grade they get in school. Do you think this is a good idea? (73)
- tpo40 (80)
- tpo39 (3)
- 1. Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for t (66)
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Parents today are more involved in their children's education than were parents in the past. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. (73)
- tpo28 (70)
- do you agree or disagree with the following statement? students are more influenced by their teachers than by their friends. use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. (70)
- tpo18. (80)