In this argument, the author concludes that humans were not a factor in the extinction of large mammal species found in the Kaliko islands 7,000 years ago. The author has tried to justify his statements by pointing out that there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. According to him, while archeologists have found bones of discarded fish in the islands, they have not found any discarded mammal bones there. However, the author has not considered the possibility that humans might have exported the parts of mammals especially bones during that period. The author has completely overlooked this possibility. Without considering this explanation, he has jumped to the conclusion that humans were not a factor in their extinction from the islands. There is also a possibility that the humans hunted the large mammals for food, and disposed the bones as well so that none was left behind as evidence. There are many cultures that destroy the bones and all other parts of mammals. Hence, this could be a reason that there was simply nothing left of the mammals to be found by the archaeologists. Hence, this point taken by the author is not valid.
This argument depends upon the author's assumption that without significant contact with these mammal species, humans could not have been a factor in their extinction. It might be that the humans had not done anything significant to these animals, but intruded their territory and natural habitat. As a result, these animals might have left their living areas. There is also a possibility of the humans destroying the food sources of the mammal species knowingly or unknowingly. Perhaps the humans consumed the plants and animals on which these species relied for their existence. These days many species are facing extinction due not to the animals being killed by humans, but by the elimination of their food sources and habitats. The humans are encroaching upon their living spaces to accommodate their increasing population. The author has failed to address these possibilities. Hence, it critically weakens the argument.
Lastly, the author has assumed that the bones of fish that archeologists have found discarded on the island were discarded by human beings, and not by some other large animal. However, the speaker has provided no evidence to support this assumption. The same thing applies to the mammals also. Hence, this evidence lends little credibility to the author's theory about the extinction of large species of mammals.
The evidence given by the author in his support is very unconvincing. To strengthen his argument, the speaker should have ruled out the possibility that humans exported the bones of these other species or that some other animal has not eaten these species. The author must have collected information about the food habits of the humans and these mammal species during that time. That would have helped to evaluate the actual reason for the extinction of these species. Without the right information, this argument is pure speculation and cannot be justified.
- 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 t 50
- In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing a 50
Essay evaluation report
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: 28 15
No. of Words: 503 350
No. of Characters: 2534 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.736 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.038 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.541 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.964 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.302 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.435 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 32, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...id. This argument depends upon the authors assumption that without significant con...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 289, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
.... The same thing applies to the mammals also. Hence, this evidence lends little cred...
^^^^
Line 7, column 348, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...vidence lends little credibility to the authors theory about the extinction of large sp...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, lastly, look, so, then, well, while, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 53.0 28.8173652695 184% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2597.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 503.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16302186879 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63628785148 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.403578528827 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 801.9 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.3209915589 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.75 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9642857143 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.82142857143 5.70786347227 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => 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: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217550334732 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0615853381886 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0853587788494 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138509937494 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0440063772638 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.35 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.