GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 26Get a Top GRE Score with Target Test Prep
12:00 PM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GRE preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. In fact, more and more Target Test Prep students are scoring 329 and above on the GRE.
Apr 24Get an Extra 30% Off Target Test Prep Plans
08:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Grab 30% off any Target Test Prep GRE plan during our Flash Sale and join Brian and many other students who have used Target Test Prep to score high on the GRE. Just enter the coupon code FLASH30 at checkout to save big.
Rate my argument AWA (out of 6)
[#permalink]
02 Jul 2022, 10:44
02 Jul 2022, 10:44
1
This is my first attempt at writing an argument essay, would love to hear feedback on this.
In the argument, the author concludes that humans play no role in the extinction of large mammal species and should be some climate change, or environmental factor. The author drew a conclusion based on a study made by archeologists that if humans were the causing factor of the extinction of mammals, then there should have been supporting evidence in the archeological sites. However, while the assertions made by the author might ultimately prove valid, she must provide two pieces of evidence in order to substantiate her argument.
First of all, the author assumes that because there was no evidence of ‘significant contact’ between humans and mammals, homo sapiens would not have played a prominent role in its disappearance. For instance, there could be a wide range of illegal dealers scavenging these mammals as their flesh holds a great medicinal value which might be used in laboratories for testing purposes. Since the process of getting approval from the government to use animals for research purposes is time-consuming as well as an expensive affair, big lab research centers use hunters to capture mammals, therefore, there might not be overt evidence of contact. If the above example holds true, or some other factor that could provide evidence that humans play a contributing role in the disappearance of mammals, then the argument is not cogent.
Furthermore, the author assumes that a limited number of sites where archeological research was studied and where bones of fishes were found, were the only spots where hunters could have discarded remains of mammals. For example, poachers could have hunted down these animals at a different location, perhaps a place in closer proximity to the research site, or could also be an isolated area on the island. In addition, folks could have discarded it in the ocean where it could have decayed and settled as a new layer in the waterbed. If any of the scenarios is true, then the author’s argument lacks merit.
In conclusion, while it is possible that humans could not have been a factor causing the extinction of mammals, and perhaps could point to other potential reasons such as climate change, and deforestation, as it stands now, rests on unfounded assumptions that hinder its persuasiveness. Thus the author should provide the two pieces of evidence discussed above in order to enhance its credibility.
Quote:
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 factors must have caused the species' extinctions.
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.
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 concludes that humans play no role in the extinction of large mammal species and should be some climate change, or environmental factor. The author drew a conclusion based on a study made by archeologists that if humans were the causing factor of the extinction of mammals, then there should have been supporting evidence in the archeological sites. However, while the assertions made by the author might ultimately prove valid, she must provide two pieces of evidence in order to substantiate her argument.
First of all, the author assumes that because there was no evidence of ‘significant contact’ between humans and mammals, homo sapiens would not have played a prominent role in its disappearance. For instance, there could be a wide range of illegal dealers scavenging these mammals as their flesh holds a great medicinal value which might be used in laboratories for testing purposes. Since the process of getting approval from the government to use animals for research purposes is time-consuming as well as an expensive affair, big lab research centers use hunters to capture mammals, therefore, there might not be overt evidence of contact. If the above example holds true, or some other factor that could provide evidence that humans play a contributing role in the disappearance of mammals, then the argument is not cogent.
Furthermore, the author assumes that a limited number of sites where archeological research was studied and where bones of fishes were found, were the only spots where hunters could have discarded remains of mammals. For example, poachers could have hunted down these animals at a different location, perhaps a place in closer proximity to the research site, or could also be an isolated area on the island. In addition, folks could have discarded it in the ocean where it could have decayed and settled as a new layer in the waterbed. If any of the scenarios is true, then the author’s argument lacks merit.
In conclusion, while it is possible that humans could not have been a factor causing the extinction of mammals, and perhaps could point to other potential reasons such as climate change, and deforestation, as it stands now, rests on unfounded assumptions that hinder its persuasiveness. Thus the author should provide the two pieces of evidence discussed above in order to enhance its credibility.
Re: Rate my argument AWA (out of 6)
[#permalink]
02 Jul 2022, 20:46
02 Jul 2022, 20:46
Where is the question prompt?
Please add.
Please add.
