标题: ARGU 54 求修改 [打印本页] 作者: zhanghaolin 时间: 2012-11-8 17:26 标题: ARGU 54 求修改 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. (相似题目：165) 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 argument, the author believes that humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions for two reasons: (1) there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals; (2) archaeologists have only discovered bones of fish but not large mammals, which means human, did not hunt them. However, I am afraid that the argument can hardly bear further consideration because there might be multiple explanations to the evidences and the author makes some precipitous assumptions.
First and foremost, the author only cites that fact that no large mammals' bones were found near the sites but without mentioning a word about the possibility that human beings might use the bones of mammals in other ways instead of burying them. For example, as we know from archaeology, many human beings in primitive tribes used large bones from mammals as instruments for hunting, tools for building or decoration. Considering that instruments or tools might be thrown in other places when they were wear out, the author should wait for more comprehensive information of the further excavation of larger area. It is a precipitous assumption that concluding that no mammals were hunted by human beings only based on the fact that no mammals' bones are found in the same sites with fish bones.
Furthermore, even though human beings were not hunting for the big mammals on the Kaliko Islands, it is too hasty to reach a conclusion that humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions. Considering that situation of survival of mammal species can be influenced by many factors and hunting is only one of them, the author should not ignore to take account of other possible factors which might influenced by human beings, such as environment (for example: people might built dams on the river and cut off or change the direction of flow of river, which results the disappearances of some water sources to some mammals). Another example is food chain. Even though human beings did not hunt large mammals, they might hunt other smaller mammals or other animals which is the food of the big mammals. As time going by, many important animals might extinct and result the final extinction of large of mammals. So in summary, the author should take this possibility into consideration.
To sum up, after pointing out so many obvious flaws in the argument, we can say that the evidence cited by the author cannot be efficient to support the argument. Before reaching a final conclusion, the author should conduct comprehensive investigations provide more information about situations of environment, food chain or other factors which might influenced by human beings. In addition, the author should wait for more information about further excavations to support his assumption.作者: 普渡哥 时间: 2012-11-9 11:22
作者可不可以试着多找出几个论点？我觉得论点多会加分。