Argument 54.Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago

qq135zxcUID：2655142

本帖来自"14年秋季GRE提纲+全文互改小组"，欢迎关注！你还可以查看更多小组、创建小组

54. 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.

tesolchinaUID：2191404

相关题165
165) 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 generally relied on both fishing and hunting for food; since archaeologists have discovered numerous sites in the Kaliko Islands where the bones of fish were discarded, it is likely that the humans also hunted the mammals. Furthermore, researchers have uncovered simple tools, such as stone knives, that could be used for hunting. The only clear explanation is that humans caused the extinction of the various mammal species through excessive hunting.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

qq135zxcUID：2655142

提纲：
In this argument, the arguer advocates that the large mammal’s extinction is because of the environment or some climate changes, instead of human hunting. This assumption based on the observation that the there is no evidence human has correlated with the large mammal ,that its bones have not been found in a large area of somewhere which the fish bones have been found. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes Discount to be a better choice for Cedar because a sample lunch of this company that the arguer happened to taste was delicious. This argument is problematic for two reasons.

First of all, the study cannot assure the exact time when people arrived at Kaliko. Same reason that people cannot sure when large mammal died out.首先，研究证据并不能确定一个详细的时间来，人类到底是在什么时候到达了kaliko岛，同样，对于kaliko岛的大型哺乳动物的死亡时间也并不能够确定。那我们并没有合理的证据来肯定它们的灭绝与人类到达kaliko岛没有任何关系，不可确定的因素太多。另外，考古学家发现的大量鱼骨被抛弃的场所，但并未发现哺乳动物骨头类似的场所。这种证据也同样不能被用来说明人类和大型哺乳动物没有很多的接触。比如说，人类并没有把大型哺乳动物的骸骨用来集中抛弃。而是随便丢弃的。因为我们知道鱼类一次可以捕捉到很多条而大型哺乳动物则只有一两只。

Another is that the conclusion that some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.The conclusion did not consider other factors and they just assumes the extinction is mainly because the environmental change.However,因为并没有证据表明是因为气候上的变化或者其他的环境因素才导致物种的灭绝。而他们灭绝的原因很有可能是人类捕杀，气候变化等环境因素所共同导致的。

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis which the correlation between human and large mammals does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence,such as specific time and evidence which support the human and mammals’ relationship.

zsczslUID：2888426

王老师好，请点评以下提纲，谢谢！

1 抄题
54. 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.

2 列出argument的结论和主要证据
claim或结论：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

证据01 because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals.
证据02 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  
证据03 some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.

3 写第一段
TS (pt1, pt2, pt3): The author claims that the human beings on Kaliko island have not forced the local large mammals to be extinct. To corroborate her conclusion, she points out the lack of evidence about the relationship between human race and those large mammals, the absence of the mammal bones in dwellers’ sites, and the occurrence of environmental change. Her argument seems logical and acceptable at first glance, yet whether her conclusion is valid relies on some essential presuppositions.

4. 写出中间段的主题句（英语）用汉语解释主要讨论的点
中间第一段
ts (pt1): To begin with, the author’ reasoning line entails the hypothesis that all the interactions between the people and the large mammal that once existed should leave some traces, which can be detected today. 作者假设人类若是与large mammals有联系，那么必定留下蛛丝马迹；留下蛛丝马迹，现代的科学家一定能探测到。假设成立，当然能说明人类没有使large mammals灭绝。倘若假设不成立，例如当地环境变化太大，湮没了所有痕迹，或是当代科学家手中科技有限，不能探知线索，那么结论就可疑了。
中间第二段
ts (pt2): Furthermore, the writer postulates that the residents in Kaliko would deal with the large mammals’ bones in the same way which they adopted to dispose the bones of fish. 假设成立，的确能证明人类未猎杀large mammals，因而没有造成他们灭绝。可是假设是可能不成立的，比如由于宗教原因，当地人觉得鱼骨吉利，而兽骨不祥，因此在住处积鱼骨当装饰品、吉祥物，而将兽骨抛至深谷、大河之中；又如由于实用原因，人们将鱼骨当作梳子等日用品，而将对自己没有用的兽骨抛弃，或是直接在猎杀之地直接割肉不取骨。那么人类没猎杀、没造成巨兽灭绝的结论就不成立了。
中间第三段
ts (pt3): The final assumption is that the previous environmental changes must be harmful to the large mammals. 假设成立，结论得证。如果假设不成立，比如过去环境的确发生了巨大变化，但却变得越来越适合large mammals敷衍生息了，那么结论也就站不住脚了。