Argument54，我的第一篇

xwjkissyUID: 3274518

In this editorial, the arguer concludes that human cannot be the reason which lead to the extinction of the large mammals of the Kaliko.To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out humans didn't have any significant contact with the large mammal.In addition, the arguer reasons that bone of food what humans ate to offer the the evidence to explain the conclusion. And then we can find this argument suffer from several critical fallacies.
the major problem with this argument is that the author want to justify that humans did not hunted the large mammals from the reason that the area discarded numerous bones of fish did not contain the bones of large mammals.Obviously this casual relation is completely false. There might be other factors why the archaeologist didn't find the large mammals' bones.May be some large mammals was the predator who ate the fish rather than humans, or may be there some unknowing little mammals or insects who like eating dead mammals' bones.So this reason might be incomplete to testify author's view.
the second flaws is that the arguer indicates that humans didn't have any significant contact with the mammals to illustrate humans is not the reason citing mammals' extinction. Although there is rarely contact between humans and mammals, that can only interpret humans is not a straight factor leading mammals' dying.Perhaps humans hunted some plant which is the mammals' main food.Or might humans pollute the the source of what which is a irreplaceable part of mammals' lives. So the arguer cannot make this reason to be the evidence of humans' not being large mammals killer.
At last, the arguer hastily consider that humans not hunting large mammals because of  not finding bones of mammals' bones.It is apparently not finding the phenomenon doesn't mean it is not existed. Perhaps the bones of large mammals is interred in thousands of miles under the surface of earth. So the author can not incurred the attest his conclusion yet.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer world have to provide better evidence to evaluate the argument and we need more other information about that.
我英语功底很差。。这也是憋了好久才出来的。。希望各位大侠帮忙狠拍。。感激万分。。8.18的G。。时间很紧张。。求帮助。。

xwjkissyUID: 3274518

字数特别少。。但是感觉实在是很难展开。。现在很慌啊。。求指教怎么让字数多一点。。

xwjkissyUID: 3274518

题目
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.