Later in his article we figure out that there is no concrete evidence showing that human hunting is the cause of animal extinction, showing to his readers that his view is just an opinion which doesn't have to be taken seriously. He continues to defend the point by saying that there is no concrete evidence that shows sudden catastrophe, which leads to animals being extinct gradually. This notion supports the hunting cause and explanation. Not only is this a contradiction since he wants us to support his thesis of human beings being the cause of extinction, consequently he shares that there is no proof that human hunting caused animal extinction so extinction might not be caused by us. This shows that his argument is less professional and the author loses some credibility since he is not fixated on one point of view and is being
Later in his article we figure out that there is no concrete evidence showing that human hunting is the cause of animal extinction, showing to his readers that his view is just an opinion which doesn't have to be taken seriously. He continues to defend the point by saying that there is no concrete evidence that shows sudden catastrophe, which leads to animals being extinct gradually. This notion supports the hunting cause and explanation. Not only is this a contradiction since he wants us to support his thesis of human beings being the cause of extinction, consequently he shares that there is no proof that human hunting caused animal extinction so extinction might not be caused by us. This shows that his argument is less professional and the author loses some credibility since he is not fixated on one point of view and is being