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 were extinct. Previous archaeological findings have suggested that early humans general

The author of the statement above recognizes human’s hunting as the main cause of the extinction of various mammals. This conclusion is based on the ambiguous archaeological findings suggesting that early humans excessively hunted mammals to the point that they become extinct. As the statement above is replete with equivocal conditions, the statement is open to different explanations.

First, it is possible that human in the Kalilo Island used other sources than mammals as his/her food. There is no trace of evidence suggesting that mammals are hunted excessively during that time. There are places that the bones of fishes are found, but the bones of mammals are not yet discovered there. Moreover, it is not ruled out the possibility that the human of that time used fruits and plants in order to meet his / her food desire, or they might hunt birds not necessarily hunting the other mammals. Furthermore, the author cites finding some tools that can also be used for hunting. It is possible that the tools were used otherwise. The knife might be merely used as a defensive tool, or it might be used to peel the rough skin of some fruits or plants. Hence we cannot say for sure that main trend of humans in feeding themselves was through hunting mammals.

Secondly, even if humans hunted mammals, they might make the mammals extinction through alternative ways rather than hunting exclusively. Large mammals obviously needed to eat lots of food as they are “large” animals. One possible scenario is that when humans came to such an island, they changed the environment that certain food became scarce for the big animals. While humans are omnivorous, they could have had a wide range of food to eat, but the large animals might not have so many choices, and they became extinct. It is possible that humans brought some viruses and infections with themselves that killed many of the mammals. We see that there are lots of ways humans could make the mammals extinction, not merely by hunting.

Finally, the mammals could have become extinct naturally. It is possible that humans were not guilty in the mammals’ extinction at all. The trend of extinction might be continued with or without the human beings. It is possible that climate changes caused fluctuations in temperatures that big mammals could not adapt themselves with the changes and they became extinct. A volcanic activity might make the big animals extinct while humans fled from that. A genetic mutation might have developed in them that made them distinct and so on.

In short, as discussed, the author’s argument lacks necessary evidence affirming the author’s conclusion. Not being supported by evidence, the argument is open to different explanations. With each rival explanation being potentially possible, the argument fails to be persuasive.