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 given argument asserts that extinction of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands does not connected with humans' activity. This conclusion is buttressed by several facts and evidences which are connected with the conclusion by unwarranted assumptions which will be carefully scrutinzed in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the argument.
To begin with, we know that the extinction took place after the human beings started to live in the island. However, the originator of the argument avers that no evidences that the people's had a appreciable interaction with the mammals has been found. At the same time, the fact that no evidences have been found yet does not mean that they will not be found in the future. In fact, the Kaliko Island may have a plethora of data which probably will be found soon when the usage of modern technologies such as satellites and unmanned drones will be available for researches. Thus, the writer's assumption that no new data will be discovered is unwarranted and therefore should not be used as supportive evidence.
Furthermore, the argument claims that a numerous sites where bones of fish had been found exist but no site with the bones of large mammals has not been discovered. The writer of the argument surmises that only possible explanation of this situation is that humans did not hunt on the mammals; However, perhaps these sites are located on the costs or near them and local dwellers used to live by fishing rather than hunting. probably, people who live in the found sites were fishmen and their source of food was the ocean consequently, no bones of the large animals was found in these sites.
Besides, the argument concludes that some other factors may cause the extinction such as climate change or other envirnmental problems. The author tends to neglect other factors which he or she does not take into consideration, for instance, humans may take with them some animals which ruined local ecosystem and caused the extinction. Or humans' activity such as farming led to the death of large animals, in fact, human activites often hurt local nature and envorinment. The author's position does not pay attention to such factors and therefore does not give a comprehensive analysis of the problem.
In conclusion, the conclusion that humans are blameless for the extinction of the large mammal species who used to live in the Kaliko Islands is not supported properly, the given evidences are based on unsupported assumptions and therfore their usage by the writer is questionable. The argument could have been stronger had the author made more thoughtful analysis of the situation.
- TPO-29 - Independent Writing TaskDo you agree or disagree with the following statement?To improve the quality of education, universities should spend money on salaries university professors.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 79
- Essay topics: TPO-46 - Integrated Writing Task 87
- TPO-34 - Independent Writing Task Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Educating children is a more difficult task today than it was in the past because they spend so much time on cell phone, online games, and social networking Web site. 86
- Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton 50 miles away Moreover relative to population size the diagnosis of stress related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton Acco 76
- The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria."Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for 60
Comments
Hello. The given link leads
Hello. The given link leads to different topic. It starts similar BUT the content of it differs drastically. Please, reread my essay. I assume that it may be a mistake.
Thank you.
Maybe the expressions are
Maybe the expressions are different, but you can take it as a reference.
Yet humans cannot have been a
Yet humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions(author's conclusion)
Why should I accept it?
1) because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals.
2)- archaeologists found no areas containing the bones of large mammals, therefore, the humans cannot have hunted the mammals.
3) some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.
it is roughly outline of the argument.
Am I wrong?
Yes, it is wrong. You have to
Yes, it is wrong. You have to prove species' extinctions are due to human beings' activities.
I have proved that the
I have proved that the extinction was caused by our species.
the first point, that if some evidences that human beings caused the extinction does not mean that some evidences will be found. Thus, absence of facts which are pointed on mankind as a cause of the deaths does not mean that we did not do it. (At the same time, the fact that no evidences have been found yet does not mean that they will not be found in the future. In fact, the Kaliko Island may have a plethora of data which probably will be found soon when the usage of modern technologies such as satellites and unmanned drones will be available for researches. it is a piece of the essay)
the second point is that perhaps some sites with the bones of mammals have not found yet. Therefore, the author's conclusion that mankind has nothing to do with the extinction is not reasonable.
the third point is that not climate but perhaps humans' activity indirectly and subtly lead to extinction for example, agriculture (burn down forests to plant wheat etc.)
My goal was to prove that author's conclusion is not correct. I need to know where I have made a mistake, to avoid repeating it. Thank you for your work. I actually deeply appreciate your help. Thank you.
Your problem is that maybe we
Your problem is that maybe we will find out data or evidence with time going or in new locations. but this is not what ETS wanted. ETS is looking for some loopholes behind that we can reach.
Hello. This argument essay
Hello. This argument essay has similar argumentation. I understand that the author managed to develop idea better nevertheless I concern with my ability to see the flows of the ETS argument prompts.
Alexiel17's first argument is similar to third one which I have used. (people changed environment of the islands for farming etc.)
Alexiel17' second argument is close to my second argument as well((Although in my case, I have failed to develop it properly).
http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/humans-arrived-kali…
thank you.
Your second argument is wrong
Your second argument is wrong. You can only say maybe the fish is on the food china of the animal, and because humans eat that fish too causing the animal out of food and died.
Your third argument is partly correct only.
Hello. In other words, I
Hello. In other words, I should accept this data for granted and do not argue against it.
"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."
The idea that no significant evidence that mankind interact with the extinct animals is the fact via which I should analyze the rest of the argument.
Is my guess correct?
Thank you.
Yes, here we need to accept
Yes, here we need to accept humans have no direct contact with the mammals. but there are indirect contacts which are the arguments we are looking for. For example:
Human beings bring virus.
Human beings eat the food that is in the animal's food chain.
....
Sentence: The writer of the argument surmises that only possible explanation of this situation is that humans did not hunt on the mammals; However, perhaps these sites are located on the costs or near them and local dwellers used to live by fishing rather than hunting. probably, people who live in the found sites were fishmen and their source of food was the ocean consequently, no bones of the large animals was found in these sites.
Error: fishmen Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Besides, the argument concludes that some other factors may cause the extinction such as climate change or other envirnmental problems.
Error: envirnmental Suggestion: environmental
Sentence: Or humans' activity such as farming led to the death of large animals, in fact, human activites often hurt local nature and envorinment.
Error: activites Suggestion: activities
Error: envorinment Suggestion: environment
Sentence: In conclusion, the conclusion that humans are blameless for the extinction of the large mammal species who used to live in the Kaliko Islands is not supported properly, the given evidences are based on unsupported assumptions and therfore their usage by the writer is questionable.
Error: therfore Suggestion: therefore
-------------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
--------------------
read a sample:
http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/humans-arrived-kali…
-------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 449 350
No. of Characters: 2214 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.603 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.931 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.63 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.933 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.107 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.733 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.607 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5