argument202 我们的九月小组 8.26

lanyelovemeUID: 2234077

TOPIC: ARGUMENT202 - 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.
WORDS: 474          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-8-26

In the argument, the author asserts that humans are irresponsible for the extinction of mammals in the Kaliko Island. To support the assertion, the author cites the assumption that humans did not have any significant contact with the species. The author also cites that no bones of large mammals are found in the areas where bones of fishes had been discarded. Close scrutiny of these evidences reveals that they lend little credible support to the claim.

To start with, the author does not provide enough evidence to support that humans did not hunt the mammals. The author simply equates the areas where bones of fishes had been discarded with the habitats of human beings. Other species that prey on fishes may discard the fish bones and the areas may be the habitats of these animals. Besides, humans may only take back the flesh of mammals and leave their bones outside or just make use of the bones such as to make ornaments. Without ruling out these possibilities and addressing them, the author just can not convince me that the humans did not hunt the mammals.

Furthermore, even assuming that the humans did not largely hunt the mammals, it is unpersuasive for the author to claim that humans are not a factor in the species' extinction. The humans may make the extinction of mammals through other indirect ways, such as polluting the natural environment which the species depend on. Besides, it is extremely possible for the humans to hunt other animals and thus destroy the delicate food chain, rendering the extinction of the mammals. Absent these evidences that show the humans did not influence the mammals indirectly, the assertion just remains unjustifiable.

Finally, the author treats a lack of proof that something is the case as constituting sufficient proof that it is not the case. Even no evidence can be available to indicate that the humans are responsible for the extinction of the mammals; it is unwarranted for the argument to claim that the humans are surely irresponsible.  Moreover, it is unpersuasive for the author to claim that there must be other environmental factors that have caused the species' extinction. No evidence is available to show that there ever are environmental changes. The mammals may also just become extinctive by themselves through the natural selection. In short, any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubts to the assertion.

In conclusion, according to what have been recounted, not enough evidence substantiate the claim. Rather than based on an unpersuasive assumption, the author should provide evidences that the humans did not exert indirect influence to the species. To better assess the claim, I need more information about the customs and lifestyles of the humans. Besides, a close and prudent study of the Kaliko Islands is essential for archaeologists to carry out.

simplearenUID: 2151889

In the argument, the author asserts that humans are irresponsible for the extinction of mammals in the Kaliko Island. To support the assertion, the author cites the assumption（引用假设？） that humans did not have any significant contact with the species. The author also cites that no bones of large mammals are found in the areas where bones of fishes had been discarded. Close scrutiny of these evidences reveals that they lend little credible support to the claim.

To start with, the author does not provide enough evidence to support that humans did not hunt the mammals. The author simply equates the areas where bones of fishes had been discarded with the habitats of human beings. Other species that prey on fishes may discard the fish bones and the areas may be the habitats of these animals. Besides, humans may only take back the flesh of mammals and leave their bones outside or just make use of the bones such as to make ornaments. Without ruling out these possibilities and addressing them, the author just can not convince me that the humans did not hunt the mammals.

Furthermore, even assuming that the humans did not largely hunt the mammals, it is unpersuasive for the author to claim that humans are not a factor in the species' extinction. The humans may make the extinction of mammals through other indirect ways, such as polluting the natural environment which the species depend on. Besides, it is extremely possible for the humans to hunt other animals and thus destroy the delicate food chain, rendering the extinction of the mammals. Absent these evidences that show the humans did not influence the mammals indirectly, the assertion just remains unjustifiable.

Finally, the author treats a lack of proof that something is the case as constituting sufficient proof that it is not the case. Even no evidence can be available to indicate that the humans are responsible for the extinction of the mammals; it is unwarranted for the argument to claim that the humans are surely irresponsible.  Moreover, it is unpersuasive for the author to claim that there must be other environmental factors that have caused the species' extinction. No evidence is available to show that there ever are environmental changes（结构）. The mammals may also just become extinctive（extincted） by themselves through the natural selection. In short, any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubts to the assertion.

In conclusion, according to what have been recounted, not enough evidence substantiate the claim. (别扭)Rather than based on an unpersuasive assumption, the author should provide evidences that the humans did not exert indirect influence to the species. To better assess the claim, I need more information about the customs and lifestyles of the humans. Besides, a close and prudent study of the Kaliko Islands is essential for archaeologists to carry out.



为啥你现在写得这么好了，学到好多东西！

lesmineUID: 2234370

文章字词句应用的很好！！（确实很地道）
但是内容有些缺陷： 第二段，说明的是人是否有侵犯恐龙提出的一些证据，最好不要把鱼骨头拉进来；