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 were extinct. Previous archaeological findings have suggested that early humans generally relied on both fishing and hunting for food; since archaeologists have discovered numerous sites in the Kaliko Islands where the bones of fish were discarded, it is likely that the humans also hunted the mammals. Furthermore, researchers have uncovered simple tools, such as stone knives, that could be used for hunting. The only clear explanation is that humans caused the extinction of the various mammal species through excessive hunting.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The given argument shows that the author feels that human settement in the Kaliko Island, 7000 years ago, was responsible for the extinction of mammal species due to excessive hunting.He also provides multiple evidences and premises trying to prove that humans majorly depended on hunting and fishing for their survival and hence excessive hunting was the main reason for the extinction of large mammals in the Kaliko Island. However, the argument is filled with flaws and the author does not provide lucid evidence to bolster his points.The following are few of the points which the author missed to make his point more pellucid.
Firstly, the author mentions that the humans came to the Kaliko Island, 7000 years ago, and within 3000 years, most of the large mammal species that lived in the forest were extinct. However, it may so have happened that, the environmental conditions that were previously suitable for the survival of large mammal species no longer persist in the islands. Conditions like food, atmosphere, climate and reproduction are responsible for the sustainability of the species population. Such conditions suitable for the survival of large mammals might not be available in the Kaliko Islands 3000 years after the Humans settled there and hence the extinction of the species. Had the author mentioned evidences of human hunting animals for their use such as food or fur, would the argument make a better sense of judgement.
Secondly, the author also mentions that the humans depended mostly on fishing and hunting as the archaelogists found evidences of discarded fish scales, due to which the author makes an assumption that this would make it obvious for the settled population to survive on fishing and hunting. However, the discarded fish bones can also be remnants of what the already present species ate for their survival or maybe those were traces of lost water bodies near the area where there might have been a previous water body. There is also no remnant or discarded animal bone found by the archaelogists which can prove that the human population surviving in the island was responsible for the extinction of the large species, due to their hunting.
Moreover researchers have uncovered simple tools such as stone knives, which according to the author are evidences that were used for hunting. However, the author fails to consider the fact that such tools can also be used for defence, cutting trees or farming purposes or for construction and other kind of survival activities. Presence of simple tools, such as stone knife, in no way makes it clear that such tools were used for hunting or killing purposes. Had the author mentioned that there were traces of animal blood or flesh found on the tools, then the argument must have given some strength to his point. However the author fails to so.
Thus, in conclusion, it can be said that, had the author kept the above points under consideration, his point of humans being responsible for the extinction of large mammals in the Kaliko Islands, would have been more convincing. But the author, however, fails to provide lucid and cogent points to prove his stand. Hence the argument remains incohesive and flawed.
No comments:
Post a Comment