- 最后登录
- 2017-8-23
- 在线时间
- 533 小时
- 寄托币
- 935
- 声望
- 86
- 注册时间
- 2010-8-25
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 113
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 521
- UID
- 2888572

- 声望
- 86
- 寄托币
- 935
- 注册时间
- 2010-8-25
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 113
|
本帖最后由 雲靉玥 于 2015-8-12 22:44 编辑
7/21
Argument 54/165
今天有点时间就把两个都卸掉了,毕竟是反着说的~
第一个用了29分钟,第二个用了25分钟,因为木有写结尾。。。这次typo不是很多,大概平均3个,有进步
感觉写的都不太多,不知道老师觉得可以不
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.
In the passage, the author argues that it was some environmental factors that caused the extinction of large mammals in Kaliko Islands. The author also claims that this extinction could no (not) have happened because of human hunting behaviors, as there is no record that human had significant contact with the mammals and no discarded bones of mammal found in the islands. To evaluate the validity of the argument, we need to examine the assumptions that the author mentioned (provided) related to human-mammal contact, the bones of mammals, and other human behaviors that might cause the extinction.
could not
mentioned选词
To begin with, it is assumed that as archaeologists did not find any evidence that indicates the human-mammal interaction, there must be no contact between human and mammals. Nevertheless, it is too arbitrary to argue that something did not happen in the past simply because we do not have the evidence. Probably ancient human had significant interaction with mammals, but because thousands years have passed, those things that can prove (that) the interaction (had actually happened between human and those mammals), such as written records and hunting tools, may be eroded or buried in deeper layer of earth so that people today have not yet find (found) them.
arbitrary选词
prove the interaction搭配
have not yet find动词形式
Another assumption that the author mentioned (provided) is that (the fact that) there is no bone of large mammals found in Kalito Islands means human did not hunt any mammal. It is possible that ancient people used those bones to make tools to cut fish or plants, and discarded those tools after they had broken. Or ancient people might carve those bones as decorations or tributes, and buried them in a place that people today still did not discover. If ancient people had damaged the bones or hided them in somewhere (some places) we cannot find, the author’s assumption cannot hold true.
mentioned 选词
there is no bone of large mammals found in Kalito Islands means human did not hunt any mamma句子结构
in somewhere we cannot find - in some places
The author also assumes that if ancient people did not hunt those large mammals, the extinction must have not caused (been caused) by human behaviors. However, there might be other human actions that result in the extinction of large mammals. For example, as people needed fire to cook, they might have cut down a large portion of forest, in which large mammals used to live and hide from their natural enemy. Or as ancient people moved to those islands, they had brought some diseases that might not hurt human but were deadly to those mammals. In either of the cases mentioned above, the mammal might still extinct (die out) as a result of the migration of human beings.
been caused
extinct 是形容词吧
In conclusion, in order to examine whether the author’s argument is valid or not, some assumptions regarding the human-mammal interaction, the mammal’s bones, and human behaviors need to be comprehensively evaluated.
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.
In the passage, the author argues that the only reason for the extinction of mammals in Kaliko Islands is human hunting, as archeologists have found fish bones and hunting tools in the islands. Nevertheless, we can come up with various interpretations mentioned by the writer, which may invalidate the author’s argument.
To begin with, the writer shows that as archeologist discovered the bones of fish in the islands, ancient people must have hunted mammals as well. A possible alternative explanation of the finding would be ancient people might only eat fish, as there is only fish bones found in the islands but no bones of mammals have discovered near the human settlements. Another interpretation would be ancient people did not eat neither fish nor mammals, because we cannot guarantee the fish bones were discarded by human beings. Unless we can find certain evidence, such as written records, to prove that ancient people did hunt mammals, the author’s argument cannot hold true.
Moreover, the author also mentions that the discovered tools like stone knife were used for hunting. Nonetheless, those knifes might have other functions instead of hunting. It is possible that ancient people used those stone knifes as decorations of their houses or as tributes. Or they might also have used those knifes to cut plants or fish meet for cooking and eating. Additionally, as people are relatively weak compared to large wild animals in the forest, probably ancient people had used those stone knifes as self-defense equipment in case of animal attacks. In any of the cases above, people did not use the discovered tools to hunt mammals, which would contradict with the author’s assumption.
Even if people had hunted those mammals, there might be other factors that had caused the extinction rather than only because of human hunting behaviors. For example, during the three thousands years from the migration of human to the extinction of mammals, the climate might have changed significantly, which might be the reason for the extinction. What is more, those mammals might also extinct because of the appearance of new natural enemies, the lack of food, or even an unexpected disease. We cannot claim that human hunting is the only factor to cause the extinction unless we have the evidence to demonstrate that all the factors above are impossible to result in the extinction.
In conclusion,
|
|