54. 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 author of this argument reaches a conclusion stating that either climate change or other environmental factors caused the large mammals extinction in the Kaliko Islands by eliminating the effects of human factors’ acting on this extinction based on the fact that no evidence shows a connection between humans and mammals. The argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which considered together render the argument wholly unconvincing.
One such assumption is that humans must have hunted fish in that the bones of fish are found in a number of sites. However, the bones of fish may not be a result of anthropic behaviors as could be other factors contributing to this discovery. For instance, fish may be washed out on shore during spring tide and died since it was out of water. As a result, it is possible to find its bones after a long time weathering. Another explanation could be these bones of fish are what left by not humans but by bears or other predators. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to weaken the author’s causality between the bones of fish and humans hunting, which in turn undermine the author’s conclusion. Therefore, only when a more obvious evidence that humans actions caused the bones of fish is stated can the conclusion of the argument be strengthened.
A second assumption is upon which no evidence related to humans was discovered implying humans can not have hunted the mammals. The editor neglects any other reasons that could make this assumption untenable. It is entirely possible that the devoid of bones of large mammals may due to excessive trading on these bones or furs of these large mammals with neighboring areas. Or local people could have made these bones as artificial handicraft articles for commercial and aesthetic purposes, which will also destroy the evidence of humans activities causing the extinction of the mammals. Consequently, the editor can not justifiably conclude that humans can not hunted the mammals on the grounds that possibilities listed above can explain such a non existence of bones of the mammals.
Finally, the “either some climate change or other environmental factor” statement cited by the author is fallacious in that there are other reasons contributing to the extinction of large mammals other than the two cited by the author, such as competition among species, natural disasters, and diseases. Undoubtedly, not only the natural’s rule of survival of the fittest but also the spread of diseases and unexpected natural disaster will remain the winner and rule out weak species. Without considering the existence of a myriad of other factors, the author falsely concludes climate change and environmental factor are the only two reasons caused the extinction of large mammals.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the argument’s proponent must provide clear evidence that the bones of fish are caused by humans activities. In addition, the author also needs to provide evidence that haunting is the only possible humans activity and there are no possibilities that the bones of large mammals will be used for commercial and aesthetic purposes.
- 54. Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most ofthe 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, 70
- Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. 62
- To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards. 79
- All students should be required to take the driver s education course at Centerville High School In the past two years several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained that 92
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 133, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'mammals'' or 'mammal's'?
Suggestion: mammals'; mammal's
... environmental factors caused the large mammals extinction in the Kaliko Islands by eli...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 663, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'can' requires base form of the verb: 'hunt'
Suggestion: hunt
...ustifiably conclude that humans can not hunted the mammals on the grounds that possibi...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 700, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...caused the extinction of large mammals. In conclusion, the argument is unpersuas...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 280, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...ence that haunting is the only possible humans activity and there are no possibilities...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'for instance', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.273195876289 0.25644967241 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.128865979381 0.15541462614 83% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0979381443299 0.0836205057962 117% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0378006872852 0.0520304965353 73% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0103092783505 0.0272364105082 38% => OK
Prepositions: 0.135738831615 0.125424944231 108% => OK
Participles: 0.0395189003436 0.0416121511921 95% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.96268573528 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0137457044674 0.026700313972 51% => OK
Particles: 0.00171821305842 0.001811407834 95% => OK
Determiners: 0.127147766323 0.113004496875 113% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0309278350515 0.0255425247493 121% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0120274914089 0.0127820249294 94% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3238.0 2731.13054187 119% => OK
No of words: 519.0 446.07635468 116% => OK
Chars per words: 6.23892100193 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7730044521 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.391136801541 0.378187486979 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.28901734104 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.21387283237 0.208842608468 102% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.14450867052 0.135150697306 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96268573528 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 207.018472906 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.42774566474 0.469332199767 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.085380477 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 25.95 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.4849452011 57.7814097925 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.9 141.986410481 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.95 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 54.851734104 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 2.53398058252 1.8405768891 138% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.372585711421 0.441005458295 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.128235856121 0.135418324435 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0679888673627 0.0829849096947 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.59822506947 0.58762219726 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.171790450841 0.147661913831 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167513804196 0.193483328276 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0859295104674 0.0970749176394 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.447485329321 0.42659136922 105% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0460624961539 0.0774707102158 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.279313451277 0.312017818177 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0341364403935 0.0698173142475 49% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.