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 that early humans general

The author of the statement concludes that a tremendous number of mammals have extincted due to the excessive hunting. Close scrutiny of the studies and the evidences presented in the argument reveals that they lend little creditable support to the recommendation.

First, as the statement above is replete with equivocal conditions, the statement is open to different explanations. The alternative explanation is pertaining to the natural factors. As a matter fact, there is various reasons for this extinction such as climate change and temperature air. Indeed an excessive number of mammal are considerably sensitive to the air variation. Besides, lack of nourishment is an another factor for this event as well. Moreover, an excessive competition would be an effective reason for this occurrence. As a consequence, paying more heed to others factors is highly imperative without any shadow of doubt.

Second, we can point out the human activities such as hunting is a pivotal role for this matter, Nevertheless, other activities which is associating with human would be crucial not just hunting. Indeed, we can investigate that deforestation which is a human activity has a profound impact for extinction. Furthermore, various people brought up a considerable number of virus and diseases to this region. As a result, many mammals might be extinct since these factors.

Finally, the assertion claims that knife is an explicit tool for hunting. In my view perspective, knife has a various uses such as fruit and plant or it is a powerful tool for defensive. Hence, observing knife would not be a major reason for hunting. In fact, using knife has several roles in our lives without hesitation.

In short, as discussed, the author’s argument lacks necessary evidence affirming the author’s conclusion. Not being supported by evidence, the argument is open to different explanations. With each rival explanation being potentially possible, the argument fails to be persuasive.