Fossil evidence indicates that the blompus-an extremely large, carnivorous land mammal-inhabited the continent of Pentagoria for tens of thousands of years until its sudden decline and ultimate extinction about twelve thousand years ago. Scientists have d

The author of the argument has failed to convience us that the significant climate change and human predation were the causes for the blompus mammal extinction. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over simplistic and unconvincing.

First of all, the argument assumes that the blompus sample population is representative. The author's main assumption is that blompus population was only distributed along the Pentagoria region. However, there could be other potential areas or continents which may sustain a significant population of the blompus mammal, which in turn implies that the mammal may have survived or not even have experienced the significant climate change or the arrival of the first humans in those regions, and become extinct at a later point in time by some other unknown factor.

Second, the author assumes that these large mammals were somehow incompetent to survive the severe climate changes along with the disruption of food chain and human predation. However, the author says nothing about any other possibly larger carnivorous primal mammal that could hunt and feast on the blompus during the so called food chain disruption. Furthermore, the unlikelihood accumulates with the low possibility that early humans were able to hunt and kill the majority of these carnivorous mammal population since there is no report on any advanced hunting weaponry that humans could have developed in those primitive times.

Finally, the argument is based on a questionable cause and effect assumption. The only reason offered for believing that the period of climate change and the arrival of the first humans caused the extinction of the blompus mammal is the fact that the former precedes the latter. No additional evidence linking the two events is offered in the argument, apart from the abstract "coincided" claim, thus leaving open the possibility that since the time scale is in thousands of years, the extinction could have happened long before the climate change or the arrival of humans. While climate change and humans' arrival may have been a contributing factor, to show a clear causal connection the author must examine and rule out various other factors.

To conclude, the argument is based on unsubstantiated assumptions and poor evidence does not provide concrete support for its conclusion. If it had included the aforementioned arguments, it would have been more thorough and convincing.