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.
- Do you agree or disagree with following statement?Students who keep rooms neat and organized will be more likely to succeed than students who do not. 70
- Do you agre or disagree with the following statement? leadership comes naturally: one cannot learn to be a leader. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?At universities and colleges, sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial support. 76
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear. 16
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. 83
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Only argument one is correct.
--------------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/humans-arrived-kal…
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 628 350
No. of Characters: 3041 1500
No. of Different Words: 269 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.006 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.842 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.648 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 221 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 162 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.731 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.489 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 156, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...ds in 3000 years is irrelevant from the humans arrival to this place in 7000 years ago...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 662, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...result, they had been extinct after the humans arrival. Another problem of the propo...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 176, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...l. It could be valid in case there were be a clue that people either directly or i...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, for instance, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3111.0 2260.96107784 138% => OK
No of words: 628.0 441.139720559 142% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95382165605 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00598923014 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73521597804 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 204.123752495 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.429936305732 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 988.2 705.55239521 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.7319298113 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.625 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1666666667 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15767401864 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0469975508448 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0525490947871 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0935466492201 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0527873340506 0.0628817314937 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 156.0 98.500998004 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.