argument求批改

hsloner

Topic:
Humans arrived inthe Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the
large mammalspecies that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct.Yet
humans cannothave been a factor in the species' extinctions, because thereis no evidence that
the humans hadany significant contact with the mammals. Further, archaeologists havediscovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, but theyfound no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humans cannothave hunted the mammals.
Therefore, someclimate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species'
extinctions.
Write a responsein which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument.
Be sure toexplain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implicationsare for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted. 大约7000 年前人类到达了Kaliko
岛，在3000 年内曾经生活在Kaliko 岛的树林中的大型哺乳动物绝大多数已经灭
绝了。然而人类并不是导致这些物种灭绝的因素，因为没有证据表明人类与这些
哺乳动物有很多接触。而且，考古学家发现一些有大量鱼骨被抛弃的场所，而他
们并没有发现存在大型哺乳动物骨头的类似场所，因而人类并没有猎杀这些哺乳
动物。因此，一定是一些气候上的变化或其他环境因素导致了这些物种的灭绝。

Outline:
作者的推断没有逻辑关联，
首先，作者说人类是哺乳动物绝迹的原因，那么相关的证据就应该被发现
然而目前还没有足够的证据出现 所以人类不是哺乳动物灭绝的原因 这个推理的一个重大缺陷就是 前提是作者自己假定的 人类做了某件事不一定流证据 而且没发现证据不代表证据不存在 现在没有发现证据 以后可能就能发现 可能是目前的技术有局限性
如果人类猎杀了那些哺乳动物，那么这些动物的骨头应该能够被发现 然而没有发现这些骨头吗所以不是人类猎杀了这些哺乳动物
人类猎杀了他们可能不会留骨头 没有发现骨头不能说明骨头不存在 可能是现代的技术条件有限 以后可能会找到相关证据
有可能有其他原因导致了哺乳动物的灭绝。

Text:
   There is not a strongly relative evidence. Wecannot conclude there is no testimony now means there will never be found.
First, it is correct that the relative evidence should be recoveredif the reason of the species' extinctions is human`s behavior. But it is too arbitraryto make define that there is no relevant because there is no evidence that thehumans had any significant contact with the mammals now. There is too manyyears passed by it is too difficult to find evidence to support it. Maybe the evidencewas ruined by nature environment and or human did not leave obvious evidence. Themore and more evidence will be found while the technology developing. A new identifiedmethod may be invented then many of problems will easy done that can not besolved now. So it is wrong that the author concluded the human cannot have beena factor in the species' extinctions because there is no evidence now.
   Then the author defined that archaeologistshave discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, butthey found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humanscannot have hunted the mammals. The author assumed that the bones of largemammals should be found if we prove that human ever hunted the mammals becausethere is analogous situation occurred in other areas. It is obvious incorrect. Itis possible that human hunt for large mammals without leave bones or the bonesof large mammals was decomposed by a variety of bacterium. And archaeologistsdo not have the ability to discover bones in terms of the current technology. Therewill may be many relevant evidence be found with the technology advanced. So itis also incorrect to define that the humans cannot have hunted the mammalsbecause they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals.
   At last the author concluded some climatechange or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctionsas well. Perhaps these factors existed. But it can not asserted there is notother reasoning. We can suppose these large mammals extinct result from therewas a big mount of the nature enemy of large mammals and so on.

llshruby

第一段最好讲一下文章的主旨
感觉第二段关于技术局限的应该放到最后写比较好
第四段太少了，而且没有总结段，字数偏少了点
然后语法错误有点多。。。。。

竹林中人

建议LZ看看OG上的6分范文，结构和内容安排什么的，很有必要好好学习