Fossil evidence indicates that the blompus-an extremely large, carnivorous land mammal-inhabited the continent of Pentagoria for tens of thousands of years until its sudden decline and ultimate extinction about twelve thousand years ago. Scientists have determined that the extinction coincided with a period of significant climate change and with the arrival of the first humans. Some scholars theorize that the climate change so altered the distribution of plants and animals in the environment that the food chain upon which the blompus depended was irretrievably disrupted. Others contend that predation by humans is the more plausible explanation for the rapid population decline.
Write a response in which you discuss specific evidence that could be used to decide between the proposed explanations above.
In this paragraph, the author is presenting two theories as to why the blompus, a large, carnivorous land mammal suddenly and quickly went extinct. Those contrasting theories posit climate change and human predation as main causes of blompus extinction, but I do not believe that the author incorporates enough evidence to make a solid argument for either theory.
Firstly, the author mentions that scientists showed that climate change or human predation coincided with the extinction of the blompus. The author then goes on to explain how both of these phenomenon can be used as causes for the extinction of the blompus. This is a classic case of mistaking correlation for causation. Just because two things happened at the same time does not mean one is causing the other. The author would make a stronger point about the validity of climate change and human predation if they mentioned that the climate changed in the areas where the blompus went extinct, or that humans painted scenes of blompus hunting. Without a stronger connection between the three different events, it is difficult to make the initial claim that they are related.
Moreover, the author does not present compelling evidence as to how climate change may have caused the extinction. They mention that some scientists believe that climate change affected the food chain enough to disrupt the life of the blompus dramatically. Yet, the author does not mention the names of specific scientists, and does not present an hypothetical foodchain. To be more effective, this argument could incorporate examples of smaller animals for which scientists can only find fossils around the same time as those found for the blompus, showing a possible interrelated decline.
Additionally, climate change could have caused the extinction of the blompus through other mechanisms. For example, temperatures may have become too cold or too hot for the blompus, which did not survice this change.
Without more specific hard evidence, I am not convinced that climate chain caused the blompus exctinction because, and especially though the disruption of a hypothetical food chain.
Similarly, the argument that human predation caused the extinction of the blompus is lackluster. We do not read of any specific theorist, any specific dates or time frame during which this would have happened. It is possible the apparition of humans may have contributed to the demise of the blompus, yet the author does not make a compelling argument that there was a direct relationship with the two. Indeed, humans could have competed with the rompus for the same food and suceeded in taking over their habitat without actually ever hunting and killing a single blompus. To make this argument stronger, the author would need to provide us that human fossils or traces were found in the area where the blompus lived and that the two species interacted with each other. Again, the author makes the mistake of assuming causation because there is correlation.
In conclusion, while the author paints broad strokes of plausible theories, they do not make a compelling argument for either one of them, or even a combination of the two. The author would need to present more specific evidence to convice me of an actual causal relationship. Only once this has been achieved will we be able to truly debate which theory makes more logical sense.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-30 | luckystar1941 | 29 | view |
| 2019-01-21 | shivaniijain | 66 | view |
| 2016-12-02 | fonta22c | 66 | view |
| 2015-11-29 | auroob irshad | 60 | view |
| 2015-08-25 | NGeo | 40 | view |
- Companies 66
- Studying foodways – What foods people eat and how they produce, acquire, prepare and consume them – is the best way to gain deep understanding of a culture. 50
- Innoculation 66
- Fossil evidence indicates that the blompus-an extremely large, carnivorous land mammal-inhabited the continent of Pentagoria for tens of thousands of years until its sudden decline and ultimate extinction about twelve thousand years ago. Scientists have d 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 185, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this phenomenon' or 'these phenomena', 'these phenomenons'?
Suggestion: this phenomenon; these phenomena; these phenomenons
...hor then goes on to explain how both of these phenomenon can be used as causes for the extinctio...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 346, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ecific scientists, and does not present an hypothetical foodchain. To be more effe...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, firstly, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, then, while, as to, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2849.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 551.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17059891107 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84493438435 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6708639151 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457350272232 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 877.5 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.0243745808 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.708333333 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9583333333 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.625 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140795999997 0.218282227539 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0491035724386 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0391927449661 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0829823431129 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0411142596859 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.