argument 202 新尝试

crazyjooUID: 2805124

TOPIC: ARGUMENT202 - 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.
WORDS: 402
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-30 18:39:42


The arguer's conclusion is highly dubious. Merely based on the evidence that human had no significant contact with mammals, a
poor reasoning that human had hunt fish rather than mammals and other gratuitous assumptions, it is presumptuous for the speaker to declare that it is environmental factor that results in the species' extinctions.


Firstly, the evidence indicating that human had not significant contact with mammals do not lend strong to the arguer's final conclusion. For one thing, it is possible that the evidence recorded significant contact between human and mammals had been lost. Thus, we human today are only left with evidence telling that human had nothing to do with the mammal's extinctions. For another thing, it is possible that human at the time deterred the mammals away with fire for own sake. During such process, in afraid of fire, mammals dared not to resist and just went away by instinct. For this matter, it is understandable that there won't be any significant contact.



Secondly, the arguer falsely assumes that human cannot have hunted the mammals by citing the fact that there have no bones of large mammals among the bones of fish. On the one hand, the arguer’s assumption that the bones of fish were left by human is ungrounded. If it is not the case, whether the archaeologists have found bones of large mammals near the bones of fish do not support the arguer's conclusion. On the other hand, even we accepted that the bones of fish were indeed left by human; however it still stands a good chance to think that human would kill the mammals the hunted in other places and thus the bones of mammals were not together with the bones of fish.



Thirdly, the arguer seems to draw two reconcile claims: the species' extinction is either resulted from anthropogenic factor or environmental factor. The disappearance of mammals in Kalikow islands might seem to be extinction to us, however, the arguer fails to take the geographic change into consideration. It is likely that Kaliko was not an island 7,000 years ago; it may connect to continent or other islands. In this respect, mammals in the island might immigrate to other places.


To sum up, this argument is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should undertake a comprehensive research to make sure that it is environmental factor rather than anthropogenic factor cause the species' extinction.