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.
The author concludes that some climate change or other environmental factor must be responsible for the large mammal species' extinctions. The conclusion is mainly based on that human cannot have been a reason for the extinctions since there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals and the archaeologists have found no bones of large mammals in the region where they discovered bones of fish. However, the author should evaluate the assumptions to establish the argument strongly.
The author mentions the lack of evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals and infers that human cannot be responsible for the extinctions of mammals. Nevertheless, the author should comprehensively evaluate the assumptions behind the inference. Even though human had no direct contact with the mammals, it does not mean that they are not the reason for the extinction. In all likelihood, they may threaten the mammals’ lives by some indirect ways, such as excessive deforestation and farming, which may occupy the habitats of the large mammals and engender the deaths of them due to the insufficient living area. It is also possible that some kind of human behaviors might cause a rapid decrease in the vegetation which the mammals feed on, as a result, they may die out on account of the lack of food. Therefore, if the author eliminates the possibilities which weaken the assumption, the argument may be more convincing.
The author also demonstrates that the archaeologists have not found any bones of large mammals in numerous sites where they discovered bones of fish being discarded and infers that human cannot have hunted the mammals. Nevertheless, this finding, in itself, cannot sufficiently substantiate the inference, and the assumption need to be checked carefully. It is entirely probable that the archaeologists have just started their research and have not searched exhaustively. So the bones of large mammals may exist but have not been found. Besides, it is likely that people may discard the bones of mammals into the sea, or they used the bones to make some useful tools rather than discarded them. Under these scenarios, the argument that human cannot have hunted the mammals is far-fetched.
On the basis that the two aforementioned inferences are justifiable, it is still hasty for the author to conclude that it is the climate change or other environment factor that resulted in the species' extinctions. Some assumptions need to be evaluated. It is totally possible that the mammals died from the widespread plague or other kinds of epidemic. Besides, never can we neglect the possibility that their extinctions can be attributed to the fierce competition among themselves or their feeble competence of evolution. Therefore, the assumption cannot hold water under these scenarios.
To sum up, while the conclusion might be plausible, the author should assess the assumptions to substantiate the argument. Had the author considered the possible scenarios to strengthen the assumptions, the conclusion and the whole argument might have been persuasive.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 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: 497 350
No. of Characters: 2573 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.722 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.177 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.874 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 73 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.591 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.011 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.524 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, then, therefore, while, kind of, such as, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2648.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 497.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32796780684 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99097392955 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440643863179 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 814.5 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.1929106519 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.363636364 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5909090909 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.77272727273 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189067120891 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0598738505248 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.056469335281 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114603575138 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0546907298458 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.