Reason for extinction of certain mammal species in the Kaliko Islands

Hello Everyone, I’d like to get your opinion on the following Argument essay I wrote. Where do you think I fell short and how can I strengthen my evidence? Thanks in advance for any help.

[b][color=blue]Prompt:
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.[/b]

[color=black]While it is true, according to archeaological findings, that large mammals went extinct on the Kaliko islands shortly after the arrival of humans, it is not entirely logically convincing that excessive hunting by these humans was the main cause of their extinction. Other activities pertaining to living such as fishing or shelter building and events outside of the humans’ control could have been responsible for this apparent disappearance of large mammals.

Consider for example that archeaologists have found evidence that the humans on the Kaliko Islands fished for food, in the form of piles of fish bones. However, who is to say that these piles of bones were exclusively the result of human activity. It is possible that the large mammals also ate fish on the Kaliko islands and discarded their bones through out the islands. If humans began fishing as well, there would have been competition between the two species. It is possible that humans began to consume more and more fish, which caused the island mammals to die out because they were no longer able to access a critical food source. Although it is possible that humans hunted the mammals, it is not mentioned that any sites with large deposits of mammal bones was found. This theory agrees with the fact that mammals died a few thousand years after the humans arrived, since such extinction would not be immediate, and tools found (like knives) could have been used to clean and prepare fish. However, food is not the only thing that humans could have struggled on the island for.

Humans on the Kaliko islands also needed protection from the elements and primitive forms of shelter could have used tree leaves, twigs and branches. As humans cut down trees in the forests to make their shelters, they would have been taking away habitats from the large mammals. A shrinking forest habitat would have increased competition for living space, food sources and potential mates among the mammals, until there were no resources left in the environment to support a population of large animals. An extinction from loss of habitat would also have been gradual and required the use of primitive cutting tools.

Yet another possibility that explains the disappearance of the large mammals is that they simply moved to another location. If humans are capable of arriving on the Kaliko islands, then surely animals are also capable of migrating to other nearby land masses. As the humans consumed the resources of the island, the need to survive could have potentially drove the large mammals to other areas where food and shelter were available to them. This is potentially an explanation of why sites with fish bones were found, but not with mammal bones.

In conclusion, while it is possible that the large mammals of the Kaliko islands went extinct due to excessive hunting by human arrivals, there are still many other potential reasons they could have disappeared from the Island including losing their food sources and habitats. And while they are no longer on the Kaliko islands, it is possible that they didn’t die off but simply moved to another area where resources were more readily available, just as the humans did before them.

TITLE EDITED.
Please help everyone to make the most of this forum and its resources by giving your threads meaningful and relevant subject lines.

Thanks for the tip, I’ll keep that in mind for future posts.

Hi, sorry for my delay in responding; I must have missed this one. I thought that your essay was very good. Your command of English is excellent; I could find only a few minor errors. Your arguments were very good and quite convincing, though I think you left a couple potential points unexplored. To me it is odd that fish bones were found, but no large deposits of large mammal bones. Fish bones tend to be very small and would decay rapidly, while large animal bones, especially the legs and skulls are very robust and resistant to decay or weathering. If the natives hunted large mammals, surely deposits of these bones would be even more prevalent than the fish bones, yet a lack of these sites provides evidence that the natives did not hunt these mammals. Another point is that when humans arrive at a new location, they often bring pests, such as rats or snakes, that stow away on their boats, as well as exotic diseases, for instance, hoof and mouth disease. These pests or diseases could have played a role in slowly weakening the population of large mammals as the rats and snakes preyed on the animals young or the diseases attack mammals that had not built any resistance to these foreign diseases. In fact, even if the natives did not bring these pests with them, rats or other exotic animals might have arrived independently sometime in the thousands of years after humans arrived, perhaps on a log or other flotsam. These are just some ideas to get you thinking, as I said earlier, I think your essay is very well done as is.

Thanks so much for taking the time out read my essay Luschen. I’ll will consider your advice and corrections carefully the next time I write an argument essay. Truth be told, some of the phrasing like “logically convincing” I got from a Princeton Review GRE prep book, but I guess this shows they don’t know everything.

Maybe I was a little overly critical of the “logically convincing” phrase - to me it seems a bit redundant, but I would trust Princeton Review over my own judgement!