Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests ofthe Kaliko Islands were extinct. Previous archaeological findings havesuggested that early humans generally relied on both fishing and hunting forfood; since archaeologists have discovered numerous sites in the Kaliko Islandswhere the bones of fish were discarded, it is likely that the humans alsohunted the mammals. Furthermore, researchers have uncovered simple tools, suchas stone knives, that could be used for hunting. The only clear explanation isthat humans caused the extinction of the various mammal species throughexcessive hunting.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanationsthat could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s)can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
==============================================================================
==============================================================================
While it might be true that the extinction of various mammal speciesderived from the excessive hunting of human beings, the author doesn't make acogent inference to validate it. We can easily tell that humans in KalikoIslands might more or less influence the living of mammals at that time, butthis argument is rife with holes and weak assumptions. A host of alternativeexplanations can easily make the inference process unconvincing.
The author cites the fact that numerous bones of fishes were discovered inKaliko Islands by archaeologists, and he concludes that the humans also huntedthe mammals. The assumption is that people who consumed fishes will definitelyhunt mammals. The conclusion seems to be too cursory when the assumption isn'ttotally right. It's largely possible that the humans at that time don't havethe know-hows for hunting. Although previous archaeological finding suggestedthat early humans generally relied on both fishing and hunting, the definitionof "early humans" is not that clear so the inference here is quitevague. These humans are likely to be earlier that these so-called "earlyhumans", and at that time, the humans in Kaliko Islands only knew thetechniques for fishing. In this sense, an argument claiming they can huntbecomes quite weak. Unless the author provides more evidence that can validatethe cause and effect of fishing and hunting, the argument will not bepersuasive and the conclusion of it will be misleading.
By almost the same token, mentioning the simple tools found from the site,the author achieved an oversimplified result that the conjecture about theirhunting is strengthened. After a comprehensive consideration, alternativeexplanations can be made and question the argument. For instance, tools foundmight not be used to hunt, but rather to kill the fishes. If this possibilityis valid, they might not hunt for mammals, which will undermine the suspicionof contributing the extinction of mammals to them. To strengthen his/herargument, the author has to give us more information that will bridge the toolswith their hunting.
Last, to say the least, granted that we admit that the humans is KalikoIslands 7,000 years ago did hunt for mammals, we can still not make sure thattheir hunting is the only clear explanation for mammals' extinction. Why can'twe find other interpretation for the extinction? The climate at that time maygive rise to the diminishment of mammals' habitats; therefore, some mammalsmight not be easy as humans to migrate. Hence, these cumbersome mammals losttheir lands and then their lives. This explanation sometimes seems even morelikely than the author's conjecture because natural disasters are always fasterand more detrimental than human factors. Only by giving some more evidence toexclude other interpretations can the author persuasive us to believe in hisinference.
The true reason for the extinction of these mammals is interesting andrelative archaeologists all want to figure it out. But an imperfect explanationwill not convince archaeologists or even laymen like me. If some more evidencecan be added to the argument, his interpretation about this issue will makemore sense and avoid being easily toppled. | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-1-28 09:14:47
收藏
收藏
