Recent theories have been proposed that suggest the extinction of many large animal species-often called mega fauna--at the end of the Pleistocene period, was caused by humans altering their environment through the use of a new tool: fire. The impact that fire can have on the landscape is undeniable and serious enough that it could have caused widespread difficulties among a range of mega fauna. The evidence supporting this theory is threefold. First, it is commonly accepted that mankind had achieved the ability to use fire as a tool at approximately the same time as the Pleistocene extinction event. Specifically, humans likely began using fire as a tool for clearing the landscape in preparation for agriculture. The clearing of large areas of plants native to an area and their replacement with agricultural crops would have upset the balance of the ecosystem by altering the food chain upon which the mega fauna depended. While an indirect effect, it could have adversely changed the feeding cycle of many species. Further, though early humans had become adept at setting fire to work for them, they were not skilled at limiting the range of the fires that they set. Uncontrolled wildfires would have killed mega fauna in large numbers and destroyed precious habitats even in areas where agriculture was not practiced. Finally, the ability to control fire enabled humans to live in colder and darker environments. With the expansion of humans into previously unsettled northerly territories, many species of mega fauna were in danger of being hunted into extinction. Although this may be seen as more of a "side-effect" of man's ability to control fire, it would have had a devastating impact on the ecosystems that were invaded by human hunters.
Audio
Now listen to a talk on the topic you just read about. The extinction of mega fauna during the late Pleistocene has been documented by researchers for many years. The cause of that extinction, on the other hand, has not been so simple to determine. In recent years, a number of researchers has suggested that humans were responsible for the decline of large animal species due to their new-found ability to employ fire as a tool. Nevertheless, there are several reasons to doubt the accuracy of this theory. In the first place, although it is undeniable that fire can alter the landscape and affect the food chain of an ecosystem by altering the variety and type of plant life available for feeding, it is unlikely that the fires used in agriculture on the scale of Pleistocene farmers could have had such a large effect. You see, there simply wasn't that much farming going on. Agricultural communities and their farms were tiny in comparison to the vast wilderness surrounding them. Second, even though it is possible that uncontrolled fires might have devastated larger areas and, thus, affected a wider range of species, it can't be proven that the fires were set by humans. In fact, lightning can just as easily cause wildfires over large areas. There is also some evidence that the explosion of a comet over North America might have been the cause of a cataclysmic fire at the end of the Pleistocene. Thus, even if fire did have an effect on mega fauna, there is no evidence to suggest that humans were the cause. Lastly, while it is true that fire enabled Pleistocene hunters to expand their hunting ranges into colder, more northern latitudes, this would not explain the extinction of mega fauna in their original hunting grounds, or in the more southern latitudes for that matter.
The reading text and lecture are both about the causes of extinction of the large animal during the late Pleistocene period. While the author feel that human kind is responsible for that mass extinction. On the other hand, the lecturer disputes that claim and states that he has some doubt on the claim present by the author.
First of all, the reading text suggests that, ability of the human to do farming lead to the mass disturbance of the mega fauna. In contrast to that lecturer said that, farming is not popular cause of the mass extinction. Moreover, he goes on to say that, farmland of that farmer is relatively too small in comparison to the vast area of presence of the fauna.
Furthermore, reading passage claim that, human is not have a skill to control the fire, what they ignite during the night. So, those uncontrollable fire is major reason for the disappearance of the mega fauna in late pleistocene period. In contrary, professor doubt that, this clam is not completely proven. On top of that, almost during that time comets explosion had happen, which had cause the fire in the large area. This was probably the main reason of extinction.
In last, author believes that, because of the ability to set up fire were increase a hunting area of the ancient people up to the northern area like, cold place and dark area. Although, tutor said that, there is no any confined evidence of it. In addition to that, ancient people also march towards the, southern area. But, according to research there is no that kind of mass extinction of mega fauna was discovered.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-30 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 85 | view |
- You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response Your response will be judged on the basis of the quality of your writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and their relationship to the reading passage Typically an effect 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Childhood is the happiest time of a person s life Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion 60
- summaries points given in the text and hear in the lecture 63
- TPO59 80
- Summarize the points made by the lecturer and author 65
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 55, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...eading passage claim that, human is not have a skill to control the fire, what they ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'happened'.
Suggestion: happened
...t during that time comets explosion had happen, which had cause the fire in the large ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'happened'.
Suggestion: happened
...t during that time comets explosion had happen, which had cause the fire in the large ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 388, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'caused'.
Suggestion: caused
... comets explosion had happen, which had cause the fire in the large area. This was pr...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 70, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
..., because of the ability to set up fire were increase a hunting area of the ancient ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 213, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ea. Although, tutor said that, there is no any confined evidence of it. In additio...
^^
Line 7, column 300, Rule ID: THE_PUNCT[1]
Message: Did you forget something after 'the'?
...that, ancient people also march towards the, southern area. But, according to resear...
^^^^
Line 7, column 356, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ea. But, according to research there is no that kind of mass extinction of mega fa...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, moreover, so, while, in addition, in contrast, kind of, first of all, in contrast to, on the other hand, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1310.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74637681159 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47131198005 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514492753623 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.0009722075 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.3333333333 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0 7.06452816374 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.154750295885 0.272083759551 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0554474344534 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0556392236121 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0964875454002 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0327717750058 0.0443174109184 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.1 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.27 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.