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.
In the given argument, the author claimed that the reason behind the extinctions of species in Kaliko Island is some climate change or other enviornmental factor. The evidence that supports the author's claimed is that there was no sign found that humans had any significant contact with the mammals and they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals. However, before recommending the author's argument, some assumptions must be evaluated.
Firstly, The author did not mention any data of the rest 4,000 years. So, on what basis he conclude that humans were not playing in role of extinctions of mammals. It might be possible that such signs was vanished in the quite long duration or 4,000 years. It might be possible that scientists was not carefully find the such signs. Because the author did not mention the whole data of 7,000 years in the agument. However, if these scenarios, has merit, the conclusion in the given argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, The author mentioned in the argument that such climate and enviornmental factor is the reason of mammal extinctions. It might be possible that due to the climatic changes, the evidence that human is also responsible for this caused, were destroyed. It might be possible that the archeologists only checked the 3,000 years and they conclude only this data that humans is not responsible for the extinction of mammals. This undermines the conclusion that humans are not responsible for species extinction. However, before recommending the author's argument, this assumption must be evaluated.
Last but not least, archeologists had discovered numerous sites the bones of fish had been discarded, but they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, this did not mean that animals were not hunted. It might be possible that humans used these bones for their dog or some other use. There is no such evidence given by the author in the argument which supports that climate and other enviornmental factor were the only reason behind the species extinction. This assumption makes the argument unwarranted and feeble.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stand now, is considerably flawed due to its various unwarranted assumptions- the author did not mention the rest 4,000 years data and did not mention any evidence that climate and enviornmental factor was the only caused for species extinction. Thus, there are several logical discrepancies in the argument. However, before recommending the author's argument, these assumptions must be evaluated.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-10-09 | priyanshi pradhan | 54 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 401, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...mmals. However, before recommending the authors argument, some assumptions must be eval...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 91, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'concludes'.
Suggestion: concludes
... rest 4,000 years. So, on what basis he conclude that humans were not playing in role of...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 311, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ssible that scientists was not carefully find the such signs. Because the author ...
^^
Line 3, column 107, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd enviornmental factor is the reason of mammal extinctions. It might be possible...
^^
Line 3, column 308, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... be possible that the archeologists only checked the 3,000 years and they conclu...
^^
Line 3, column 317, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ble that the archeologists only checked the 3,000 years and they conclude only t...
^^
Line 3, column 550, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ction. However, before recommending the authors argument, this assumption must be evalu...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 377, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ument. However, before recommending the authors argument, these assumptions must be eva...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, in conclusion, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 58.6224719101 51% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2137.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 408.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23774509804 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80998996244 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 215.323595506 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.384803921569 0.4932671777 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 644.4 704.065955056 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.7985005573 60.3974514979 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.761904762 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4285714286 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52380952381 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 7.80617977528 102% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 10.2758426966 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 5.13820224719 331% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179218179273 0.243740707755 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577852355404 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0547548919808 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114482438776 0.150359130593 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0313667599564 0.0667264976115 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.38706741573 91% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 100.480337079 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
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.