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 says, that the humans were not the factor of extinction of large mammals species lived on kaliko islands 7000 years ago. The author has supported this by justifying that there was no significant contact of humans with mammals. Also there was of outbreak of any disease which might be oe of the cause of mammal extinction. According to him, the archeologist have found bones of fish been discarded but have not found bones of mammals in the area. The author has completely overlooked this possibility. Without considering this explanation, he has jumped to the conclusion that humans were not a factor in their extinction from the islands. There can also be a possibility that the humans hunted the large mammals for food, and disposed the bones as well so that none was left behind as evidence. There are many cultures that destroy the bones and all other parts of mammals. Hence, this could be a reason that there was simply nothing left of the mammals to be found by the archaeologists. Hence, this point taken by the author is not valid.
Secondly, the author says that, there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. But, there is no evidence of this case. It might be possible that humans may have drive mammals away from their natural habitat. There can also be a possibility of natural disasters. Even mammals have been migrated to greener pastures. In search of food or good dwelling place. So, humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Also, there is possibility that humans might have intruded mammals territory and natural habitat. The humans might have also consumed all the eatable plants and animals and left nothing for mammals. The humans are encroaching upon their living spaces to accommodate their increasing population. The author has failed to address these possibilities. Hence, it critically weakens the argument.
Lastly, the author says that archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, and discarded by humans. And not by any large animals. But, still tere is no evidence for his assumption.
Finally the non availability of food and weather conditions can also be one of the reason for extinction of mammals. The authors must have collected the information’s of humans and mammals during that time. Many things about the mammals remain unclear due to which the argument cannot be justified. The argument can be strengthened by providing evidences about the archaeologists, the bones of fish dates back particularly to the time when large mammals became extinct ,clearly defining However, the argument in the current state that humans had no involvement in extinction of large mammals but the climatic or environmental factors based on the authors assumption is flawed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 70, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ans were not the factor of extinction of large mammals species lived on kaliko is...
^^
Line 1, column 78, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'mammals'' or 'mammal's'?
Suggestion: mammals'; mammal's
... not the factor of extinction of large mammals species lived on kaliko islands 7000 ye...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 240, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ificant contact of humans with mammals. Also there was of outbreak of any disease wh...
^^^^
Line 3, column 733, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ccommodate their increasing population. The author has failed to address these poss...
^^^
Line 7, column 2, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
... is no evidence for his assumption. Finally the non availability of food and weathe...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 475, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...e time when large mammals became extinct ,clearly defining However, the argument i...
^^
Line 7, column 654, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...c or environmental factors based on the authors assumption is flawed.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, hence, however, if, lastly, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2347.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 459.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11328976035 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76400275365 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442265795207 0.468620217663 94% => OK
syllable_count: 729.9 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.7985645379 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.9310344828 119.503703932 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8275862069 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.37931034483 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255073007836 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0673529834291 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0872542057527 0.0701772020484 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152077356038 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0452355225587 0.0628817314937 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.06 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.