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
The given passage has stated two different views from the extintion of blompus, an large, carnivorous land mammal. The first explanation proposed is not plausive, because first humans was not advanced enouth to extintic an animal bigger than they were. The second one, about the climate change is easier to follow and make more sence.
First, the first humans might be so primitive in that time and they could not hunt an animal bigger than they were. In addition the passage suggests that humans were not so smart because they were the first ones, so in the beguining of the evolution process. So they could not bulit spears and make plots to hunt those big mammal. It seen more obvious that blumps was the predators of humans. Not the opposite as the passage suggest.
Second, lets assume that humans was smart enouth and they hunted those blompus. However, it is not plausive that humans could hunt them in such a high rate that could extint it. For example, today humans have guns and a lot of technologies and until not we could not extint some foreing species which cause damages in some enviroments. Therefore, it seens very difficult for human extinct an especie in that time.
Third, climate change seens to be an obvious explanation. As the passage states, some food chains which the blompus depends on was disrupted and they could not adapt themself and was extinted. It is easier to follow becuase a big mammal need much more food to survive than an small mammal, like humans are. In addition, humans can eat both meat and plants, so at that time when meat was not abundant, humans could have change their food habits and survive during that period of climate change.
To conclude, based on the arguments exposed above I am of the opinion that the climate change is a better explanation for the extintion of blompus. The other explanation that humans was responsable not seen very persuasive.
the extintion of blompus, an large, (do not use comma here) carnivorous land mammal.
because first humans was not advanced enouth enough to ...
First, the first humans might be so primitive in that time and they could not hunt an animal bigger than they were.
In that time, the first humans might be primitive, so they did not hunt the animal which had bigger size than them.
In addition, the passage suggests explains that humans were not smart yet, because they were the first ones,so herebeguiningand this is the beginning of the evolution process.
hi, Albertino, here is my overall suggestion for you
your passage still contains so many misspelled, so it is important to check the spelling before publish it. the other is, there are some sentences which is not clear. it seems like there will be other words in that sentences, but not.
consider the grammar too :)
thank you
