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.
The author of argument assumes that for the sake of the scanty evidence to support that the humans led to the extinctions in the 3000 years, the other factors such as the climatic or environmental issues can cause this incident. This assumption cannot be accepted as it stands; it rests on the series of surmises all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
The first issue with the argument is that the writer assumes that since there is no evident to demonstrate that the human had the direct contact with the mammals they did not over hunt them. However, it is an unproven clue; inasmuch as the lack of evidence cannot support this issue. For instance, maybe the new arrival humans had a specific technic for hunting which did not require the particular hunting tools. Or perhaps they used the ordinary substance such as the rope which the archaeologist have not yet distinguished it for the hunting purpose. Each of scenarios would present an alternative testimony for the hunting by humans which contradicts with the assumed claim.
The second issue is related to the sites which contain the extensive remains of fishes' bones. As the author asserts, there are some sites with the fishes' bones, but there is no spot with the mammals' skeletons. Thereby the humans did not hunt them. This is a shaky hypothesis since some feasible reasons are overlooked. One of these ignored and possible reasons could be the making handcraft or instruments by the bone. As a matter of fact, the ancient people had this ability to make a tool from the natural materials for their utilizations; besides, maybe the mammals' bones had these features to use for this aim. However, the fishes' bones were fragile for this consume. The argument would have been fortified if the author had concretely evaluated these inevitable options.
Finally, the author declares another unverified clue that the climatic and environmental factors could lead to this event. This testimony cannot be verified as asserted in the article since these factors should be so severe to lead this situation. As an example, the harsh, prolong and cold winter could cause this issue. As this condition is too striking and noticeable, it should have been submitted by the scientists. However, there is no statistical information about it. Moreover, the environmental issue should be as severe as mentioned about the climatic factor. Besides, these adverse conditions should have been recorded due to their severeness. As long as there is no clue and data about them, the declaration is trembling.
All in all, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentioned above, and it is, therefore, unpersuasive. It could have been strengthened if the author clearly examined and evaluated the data mentioned. Without this information, the argument opens to debates.
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'for instance', 'such as', 'as a matter of fact']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.209213051823 0.25644967241 82% => OK
Verbs: 0.16122840691 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0710172744722 0.0836205057962 85% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0479846449136 0.0520304965353 92% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0287907869482 0.0272364105082 106% => OK
Prepositions: 0.119001919386 0.125424944231 95% => OK
Participles: 0.0479846449136 0.0416121511921 115% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.6746367582 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0191938579655 0.026700313972 72% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.170825335893 0.113004496875 151% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0287907869482 0.0255425247493 113% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00959692898273 0.0127820249294 75% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2828.0 2731.13054187 104% => OK
No of words: 468.0 446.07635468 105% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04273504274 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.369658119658 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.279914529915 0.287650121315 97% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.190170940171 0.208842608468 91% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.108974358974 0.135150697306 81% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6746367582 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 207.018472906 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465811965812 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 52.4972059893 52.1807786196 101% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.8825085451 57.7814097925 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.769230769 141.986410481 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.615384615385 0.724660767414 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 45.9914529915 51.9672348444 89% => OK
Elegance: 1.58064516129 1.8405768891 86% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.423219948162 0.441005458295 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.103439144647 0.135418324435 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0721737582339 0.0829849096947 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.527179715801 0.58762219726 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.157403199689 0.147661913831 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165635149238 0.193483328276 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.087574583324 0.0970749176394 90% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.495901332285 0.42659136922 116% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0900413146299 0.0774707102158 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.313280297361 0.312017818177 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0658477388661 0.0698173142475 94% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.87684729064 233% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: This is not the final score. 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.