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

skywongchiuUID: 3261705

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

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.

相关题目：165
请回帖时按照指引( https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1777364-1-1.html )列出英语提纲并用汉语解释并根据指引点评楼上的提纲。 第一个回帖的同学不必点评

skywongchiuUID: 3261705

Argument: Humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.

論証1: 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.

論証2: 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.

論証3: Some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.

The speaker argues that climate change or other environmental factor should be responded for the mammals’ extinctions, citing the evidence that people did not have a significant contact with the mammals. In order to examine the assumption of the argument, the relationship between the assumption and the argument – humans’ contact with the mammals and the species’ extinctions, the place strong the bones animals and the mammals’ extinctions, and climate change or other environmental factor and the mammals’ extinctions – is needed.

To start with, the relationship between humans contact with the mammals and the extinctions of the species is needed to examine while judging the speaker’s argument that since humans did not have a significant contact with the mammals, humans played no role in the extinction of the species.  講者假設在人類和大哺乳动物沒有明顯/重大的接接觸之下, 人類並不可能影響到大哺乳动物的生活。因此, 大哺乳动物的絕種和人類是沒有關係的。這一個假說是基於表面的資料去做出結論。可是, 表面的証明並不可以說明2者之間的關係。比如說, 就算人類沒有和大哺乳动物緊密的接觸, 他們也可以影響大哺乳动物的生命。例如:人類燒林農作的行為可能直接影響大哺乳动物的可居住的地方。從而令到大哺乳动物的生命受到影響。在這一假說之下, 講者的假說便會被weakened.

Furthermore, the relationship between the archaeologists discovered and the species extinctions should be examined in order to judge the speaker’s claim that humans should not be responded for the large mammals’ extinctions. 講者假設當考古学家發掘的工作証明很多存放被丢弃的骨頭的地方都只發現魚骨, 所以人類並沒有獵殺大哺乳动物。這一個假說是基於看到的實物去做定論的。這一假說並不可以解釋清楚2者的關係。For example, 人類可能分開不同的地方丢弃魚和大哺乳动物的骨頭; 人類可能把大哺乳动物骨頭也食了。而這一些地方都沒有被考古学家發玩。在這些前提之下, 講者的論說會被weakened.

Additionally, the relationship between the climate change or other environmental factor should be accounted for the large species’ extinctions is needed to examined while evaluate the speaker’s claim that other factor than human factor must have caused the species’ extinctions. 講者假設當人類並不是殺害大哺乳动物的主因, 大哺乳动物的灭绝一定和氣候的改善OR其他環境因素影響。講者的假設只單單考慮3個因素如何各自地導致大哺乳动物灭绝。講者沒有考慮到3個因素之外的原因和3個因素的互動性。For example: 天氣和人類的行為可以共同影響大哺乳动物的生存; 其他因素 – 如動物之間的打鬥 – 都可以令到他們灭绝。在這一些前提之下, 講者的假設不可以解說為什麼大哺乳动物的灭绝。