[新版]Argument202 第一次比较正式的练习,没有先看题,规定时间完成的,大牛进来看啊

goodgoodstudyUID: 201753

Argument202 ------摘要------
共用时间：34分59秒     502 words
从2005年2月28日19时52分到2005年2月28日20时34分
------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------
In this argument the author states that large mammals species in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct about 4,000 years ago, but it is not because the human arrival. To prove this, the author cites the evidence of findings of numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded but none of the mammals' bones.
However, this view is so weakly supported that I could not be convinced.

Firstly, Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago must have influenced the environment there greatly, while the author has tried to show us the little importance of it. As is well known, the species including plants and animals there in the Kaliko Islands had peacefully existed before the arrival of human beings. Humans, as a common species, would join in the food chain of this area and that is to say the former balance was disrupted since then. Considering it is 7,000 years then, the humans at that time might not so developed to fight against any species of the world, so it is truly possible that they did not had any significant contact with the mammals. But, the significant influence they did to the food chain there and the environment there should not be neglected and the large mammals became extinct just because of these reasons.

Secondly, although archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, and found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, it is still too hasty to say the humans then cannot have hunted the mammals. Humans then would find anything to fill their stomach to survive and you can never overlook the thirty of humans then for a life. Animals in the water or in the forest or even those which flying in the sky could all be their food. No large mammals' bone is found today dose not fully substantiate that humans could not hunt them and maybe their bones then were valuable for humans surviving for other necessary usage, for example, ivories were usually used by Eskimos to support their huts which were covered with animal furs. And fish bones might be useless so they were deserted and buried.

Finally, the author has failed to provide other factors that might have influences on the extinction of the large mammals there, although they might be not so important. But those evidence could strengthen the importance of human impact. It is possible that many other factors were induced because of the appearance of humans then. Admittedly, great changes in climate might really threaten the existence of many species and it is a possible inducement of the extinction of large mammals then.

In sum, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it more evidence should be supported to describe the impact of the humans to the whole islands and the food chain there should be deeply studied for more information. Also, such information about the climate there thousands years ago should be precious.

suntimUID: 195408

zan
顶

goodgoodstudyUID: 201753

问个很弱的问题,怎么定义自己的头像啊?

secular birdUID: 199948

In this argument the author states that large mammals species in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct about 4,000 years ago, but it is not because the human arrival. To prove this, the author cites the evidence of evidence of 建议去掉findings of numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded but none of the mammals' bones +had been found(不加看着别扭，或者换一下别的句式).
However, this view is so weakly supported that I could not be convinced.

Firstly, Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago must have influenced the environment there greatly, while the author has tried to show us the little importance of it. As is well known, the species including plants and animals there与后面重复建议去掉 in the Kaliko Islands had peacefully existed before the arrival of human beings. Humans, as a common species, would join in the food chain of this area and that is to say the former balance was disrupted since then. Considering it is(was) 7,000 years then(before), the humans直接用human比较好 at that time might not so developed to fight against any species of the world, so it is truly possible that they did not had any significant contact with the mammals.我觉得这句话前后没有什么因果关系，直接说Even assuming that human indeed had no significant contact with the mammals at that time比较好 But, the significant influence they did to the food chain there and （to）the environment there should not be neglected and (in all likelihood that)the large mammals became extinct just because of these reasons.
Secondly, although archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, and found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, it is still too hasty to say the humans then cannot have hunted(would not hunt) the mammals. Humans then would find anything to fill their stomach to survive(重复) and you can never overlook the thirty of humans then for a life（不明白这句话是什么意思）. Animals in the water or in the forest or even those which建议去掉 flying in the sky could all be their food. No large mammals' bone is found today dose not fully substantiate that humans could not hunt them and maybe their bones then去掉 were valuable for(to) humans surviving(去掉) for other necessary(换imperative) usage, for example, ivories were usually used by Eskimos to support their huts which were covered with animal furs. And fish bones might be useless so they were deserted and buried.

Finally, the author has failed to provide other factors that might have influences on the extinction of the large mammals there, although they might be not so important. But those(this) evidence could strengthen the importance of human impact. It is possible that many other factors were induced because of the appearance of humans then. Admittedly, great changes in climate might really threaten the existence of many species and it is a possible inducement of the extinction of large mammals then.总体感觉这段比较矛盾，开头句好像在说其它原因可能导致灭绝，后又写是人类，觉得比较混乱

In sum, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it more evidence should be supported to describe the impact of the humans to the whole islands and the food chain there should be deeply studied for more information. Also, such information about the climate there thousands years ago should be precious.
(总体感觉像是在写issue,不像在写argument,逻辑性不是很强)
个人观点，不对之处楼主多包涵

secular birdUID: 199948

第一次改作文，本来改的地方都换成蓝色了，不知道怎么搞的，贴上就没了

alexzhou_usUID: 186956

我觉得好象很冷

goodgoodstudyUID: 201753

哥们????