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.
My response:
The author asserts that some climate change or environmental factor must have caused the extinctions of the large mammal species. Although, given the sequence of the author's reasoning, this claim sounds plausible at first, there are several questionable assumptions on which the claim heavily depends.
The author assumes that the humans had no significant contact with the mammals since there has been no relevant evidences found. There are at least two problems with this assumption. First of all, just because there has been no evidences found so far that can prove significant contact between the humans and the mammals, does not mean there are evidences yet to be found which can convey otherwise. The author does not reveal what sort of studies or researches had happened at the islands and thus cannot be taken word for word when he claims there is no evidence. There could be evidences that the studies or researches have not yet dug up due to lack of technology or budget and these unfound evidences may contain crucial proofs that show humans did hunt down the mammals. Secondly, whatever the evidences that may serve as proofs for the contact may have been either decomposed over. For example, if the bones of the mammals, after being hunted by humans and served as food sources, were discarded by humans in locations where decomposition can occur completely over the course of at most 4000 years, then it is obvious that no bone related evidences can be discovered. As can be seen from the two problems described here, the author's assumption regarding humans' contact with the mammals may easily be compromised, and with this assumption invalid, the author's conclusion loses its ground as humans could indeed have indeed hunted the mammals down.
Moreover, the author believes that the archeologists' discovery is comprehensive and valid across the whole span of the islands and thus validates his line of reasoning that since archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, but no such areas containing bones of large mammals, humans cannot have hunted the mammals. However, it is unknown whereabouts on the islands these sites were found. For instance, if archaeologists had only searched the coastal areas of the islands, then it is quite likely that they found only the sites where human tribes who depended on fishing to survive. Hence, it is quite possible that there were other human tribes whose primary methods of getting foods were hunting large mammals in the forests. If these humans discarded the mammal bones only in the forests and not on the coastal areas, and the archaeologists' survey only included coastal areas, then it does not make a cogent case to correlate the archaeologists' discovery with absence of human involvement in the extinctions of the mammals.
In conclusion, although the author's claim may hold true if all the aforementioned assumptions are valid, there several cases under which the assumptions can be unwarranted. Namely, if the evidences were either not found or destroyed over time, it refutes the premise that humans had no significant contact with the mammals. Also, if the archeologists' discovery has missed out on parts of the islands where bones of large mammals hunted down by humans were deposited, then the premise that humans did not hunt down the mammals would be disproved. Any of these examples, if true, would effectively compromise the assumptions, thereby rebutting the author's claim.
I know it's not perfect but please~! if you can provide me some feedbacks!
Hello, i just try to give you some advise.. In my opinion, it is better if you can more pay attantion in your grammar such using tenses or singular-plural noun..
{first sentence} The author asserts that some climate change or environmental factor must have caused the extinctions of the large mammal species. => The author asserts that some climate change or environmental factor have caused the extinctions of the large mammal species.
Hi Brian, first of all, WELCOME to the Essay Forum Family, we hope you find this website not only credible but valuable as well as useful in your revision process and even on your future writing projects.
Now, as I read through your essay, I would like to suggest that, aside from other contributors suggestions, try to refrain from using the same words all through out the essay, when you have established the subject which in this case is the argument made by the author, you can substitute the subject with "the", "it" as this will lessen the redundant effect of the sentences that will make up the essay.
Furthermore, words such "problems" are negative connotations, though we cannot avoid to associate this words in the essay, you have a few other words that you can use in order to denote a negative idea without sounding negative such as using words like "issues", "struggle", know your words as this will guide you in your writing projects.
