argument202限时烂作!

flyingwindUID: 189320

Argument202  
------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.
------正文------
The arguer concludes that it is the climate change or other factor rather than humans that contribute the extinction of mammal species in the Kaliko islands. Nevertheless, lacking evidence showing human had contact with the mammals and the fact that there have been found the sites abound with bones of fish, but not mammals. Nevertheless, the arguer should consider further from sever other angels.

To begin with, lacking evidence showing that humans had any significant contact with the mammals accomplish nothing toward that human has nothing to do with the extinction of the mammals. First, consider the large mammal species had been extinct for 3000 years, it is most likely that those evidence are ruined or missing so as to be passed down. In 3000 years ago, humans had no written language so that they could not write what they had done to those mammals. They even had no languages to convey the related information. Second, the change of climate or the erosion of wind or flood might make the evidences almost vanished.

In addition, even if assuming that humans have no direct contact with the mammals, it amounts to scant evidence that humans did not contribute to the extinction of those mammal species. Many human factors might pose high risk on the animal species without contacting them. For example, perhaps humans invade the territory of those mammal species therefore influence their inhabitance, or mate. Or perhaps humans utilize or consume the plants or animals which might supply food to those large mammals. Also, humans might kill some other animals, yet indirectly influence the ecosystem equilibrium so as to bring about the extinction of those mammal species. We just do not know.

Finally, the assumption of the arguer is that since there are evidences of bones of fish but no bones of large mammals, so the human hunted the fish rather than the mammals. First, those bones of fish might not necessarily due to the hunting of humans. Maybe other animals hunt them, even some mammal animals. Second, that they found no such areas containing bones of large mammals does not mean there are no such areas. Perhaps people nowadays have not found those places, due to the change of geology, those places are deep under the sea. Third, without finding bones does not mean that humans did not hunt mammals. For example, they perhaps exported those large mammals to the other islands or regions. Or perhaps they were accustomed to burn the bones of these mammals when their meats were eaten.

In sum, failing sufficient evidence that humans in the 7000 years ago did no harm to the large mammal species, the conclusion that human actions should not taken that responsibility is dubious as it stands.

bluefiaryUID: 184899

No.1 argument202限时烂作!
Argument202
------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.
------正文------
The arguer concludes that it is the climate change or other factor rather than humans that contribute the extinction of mammal species in the Kaliko islands. Nevertheless, lacking evidence showing human had contact with the mammals and the fact that there have been found the sites abound with bones of fish, but not mammals. Nevertheless, the arguer should consider further from sever other angels[angles].[这一段总结的，我觉得不是很好，连用两个nevertheless，考官啥感受？]

To begin with, lacking evidence showing that humans had any significant contact with the mammals accomplish nothing toward that human has nothing to do with the extinction of the mammals. First, consider[considering] the large mammal species had been extinct for 3000 years, it is most likely that those evidence are ruined or missing so as to be passed down. In 3000 years ago, humans had no written language so that they could not write what they had done to those mammals. They even had no languages to convey the related information. Second,[they can cause the mammals to extinct in indirect ways, such as ^^^] the change of climate or the erosion of wind or flood might make the evidences almost vanished.

In addition, even if assuming that humans have no direct contact with the mammals, it amounts to scant evidence that humans did not contribute to the extinction of those mammal species. Many human factors might pose high risk on the animal species without contacting them. For example, perhaps humans invade the territory of those mammal species therefore influence their inhabitance, or mate. Or perhaps humans utilize or consume the plants or animals which might supply food to those large mammals. Also, humans might kill some other animals, yet indirectly influence the ecosystem equilibrium so as to bring about the extinction of those mammal species. We just do not know.[我觉得B1和B2写的有点重复？]

Finally, the assumption of the arguer is that since there are evidences of bones of fish but no bones of large mammals, so the human hunted the fish rather than the mammals. First, those bones of fish might not necessarily due to the hunting of humans. Maybe other animals hunt them, even some mammal animals. Second, that they found no such areas containing bones of large mammals does not mean there are no such areas. Perhaps people nowadays have not found those places, due to the change of geology, those places are deep under the sea. Third, without finding bones does not mean that humans did not hunt mammals. For example, they perhaps exported those large mammals to the other islands or regions. Or perhaps they were accustomed to burn the bones of these mammals when their meats were eaten. [这一段小结一下，without considering those possibilities or ruling out these ^^^]

In sum, failing sufficient evidence that humans in the 7000 years ago did no harm to the large mammal species, the conclusion that human actions should not taken that responsibility is dubious as it stands.
[写的还行，尤其是B3。
有空看看我的，ARGUMENT67，也是刚写的。
呵呵，我23考，一起努力啊。]

flyingwindUID: 189320

.[我觉得B1和B2写的有点重复？]
不重复 1是说有直接接触，没有记录；2是间接影响

这一段小结一下，without considering those possibilities or ruling out these ^^^

总结是可以的，感觉象摸板