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 following argument is flawed for several reasons. First and foremost, the extinction of the mammals could be as a result of an indirect contact with the humans which lived there. Furthermore, assuming humans were indeed responsible, the discarding of the mammal bones might have been done in a different fashion that those of the fish. Finally, other reasons could be suggested except for humans and climate change.
A direct link between humans and mammals, such as hunting, is only one way in which humans could have caused the death of the mammals. Consider the possibility of both the humans and the mammals hunting for the same source of food, for example the mentioned fish. The humans, due to their wit and strength, could have been more successful in this hunt than the mammals. As a result, they could have depleted all waters from fish, leaving the mammals to starve to death.
Another problematic assumption in the argument is that, assuming humans did hunt the mammals, they must have discarded their bones in the same way they discarded the bones of the fish. However, it might be the case that the bones of the mammals, unlike the bones of the fish, were of some practical use. For example, one could use them to start a fire, as burning material instead of wood, or perhaps even use them to create boats. These would result in the bones never being found by modern archaeologists. Furthermore research and more discoveries in the area of Kaliko could shed light on this matter. For example, boats were found in the area made of mammal bones could clearly support this theory.
As a final note, the argument suggests that since humans were not responsible for the extinction of mammals, climate change must have been the cause. However, many other options are available. The mammals could have been eradicated by a meteor which came from the sky or by some disease which spread rapidly and killed all mammals. Only further investigation of the climate in these years, via modern technology, could shed light on whether this was indeed the cause.
From the above we conclude that humans might have indirectly caused the extinction of the mammals. Furthermore, assuming they did not, several other possibilities which are not less likely could have been the cause.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 294, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a different fashion" with adverb for "different"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...f the mammal bones might have been done in a different fashion that those of the fish. Finally, other ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 509, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...r being found by modern archaeologists. Furthermore research and more discoveries in the ar...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'except for', 'for example', 'such as', 'as a result', 'in the same way']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.230414746544 0.25644967241 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.152073732719 0.15541462614 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0645161290323 0.0836205057962 77% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0529953917051 0.0520304965353 102% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0230414746544 0.0272364105082 85% => OK
Prepositions: 0.135944700461 0.125424944231 108% => OK
Participles: 0.0529953917051 0.0416121511921 127% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.44620015506 2.79052419416 88% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0115207373272 0.026700313972 43% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.142857142857 0.113004496875 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0391705069124 0.0255425247493 153% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0115207373272 0.0127820249294 90% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2288.0 2731.13054187 84% => OK
No of words: 387.0 446.07635468 87% => OK
Chars per words: 5.91214470284 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.335917312661 0.378187486979 89% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.232558139535 0.287650121315 81% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.149870801034 0.208842608468 72% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.077519379845 0.135150697306 57% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44620015506 2.79052419416 88% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 207.018472906 86% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462532299742 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 48.9642442151 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.35 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.6919500771 57.7814097925 58% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.4 141.986410481 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.35 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.55 0.724660767414 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 42.6058139535 51.9672348444 82% => OK
Elegance: 1.83838383838 1.8405768891 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.470115755964 0.441005458295 107% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.110539285806 0.135418324435 82% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0910905767457 0.0829849096947 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.560852541773 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.161901584778 0.147661913831 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.208981647424 0.193483328276 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117604736686 0.0970749176394 121% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.521996383618 0.42659136922 122% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0477873485516 0.0774707102158 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.354156883108 0.312017818177 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0446543817032 0.0698173142475 64% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 8.0 2.82389162562 283% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.