Fossil evidence indicates that the blompus-an extremely large, carnivorous land mammal-inhabited the continent of Pentagoria for tens of thousands of years until its sudden decline and ultimate extinction about twelve thousand years ago. Scientists have d

Follow the statement, the author asserts that there is two plausible conclusions for the decline of the blompus population which is an extremely large land mammal has been extinct from this world for 12 thousand years. At first glance, It is likely to rational with the event occurred at that time. However, it is not entirely logically convincing because it ignores some certain crucial assumptions. First and foremost is, the author omits to elaborate on the intrinsic characteristics of the blompus as an animal itself. Was it cold blooded or warm blooded? Was it living in comparatively tropical topography or was it, in fact, an inhabitant of Arctic poles? The information presented above is not enough to relate the further theories that have been presented as a viable explanation to the extinction of blompus since the paragraph providing lack of the major characteristic associated with blompus itself. Secondly and quite obviously, the first argument presented by the scholars taking consideration into the extinction of blompus as a result of sudden climate change overlooks that climate change may not have indeed unfavorable for the blompus itself. We are unaware of the fact that what kind of a climate change at that place and we can not make sure whether these climate changes have had any effect on blompus or not. And in some cases, there is still the situation that the blompus could adapt to climate change in quite an appealing fashion. Similarly, the author unambiguously establishes that the blompus was a carnivorous mammal so scientists imagining that plants disruption would have resulted in less food for blompus is scientifically incorrect. The argument itself is unable to present any evidence of what kind of animals they were dependent upon or whether the reproduction of those animals exacerbated or augmented as a result of the climate change. In addition to that, the second argument devised by the theorists about the blompus was in the food chain of human, nevertheless, it still contains many irrational factors which need filling before we proceed with establishing it as a prudent reason for blompus's extinction. There is a huge lack of evidence as if blompus was edible or not? What were the eating habits of the human then? Were they sharing the same topography with blompus or not? Was blompus, a perilous animal to hunt or was readily available for hunting? Could blompus have been used for any other human habit-say transportation? If the author had provided answers to the following questions, it second argument might have had firmer grounds to complement itself as a plausible explanation for the extinction of blompus. While there is some useful information stipulated by the author as for blompus extinction, it cannot be inferred from the passage that the arguments or rather hypothesis it presents could serve as a pragmatic foundation for explaining the extinction of blompus. Hence we cannot fully rely on the predictions presented in the passage.