1.
In supporting her argument that man as a hunter has overwhelmed our image of man as prey, the author refers to the discovery of a punctured australopithecine skull found in Africa (P.3). We have become so preoccupied with the idea of almighty man that researched had initially been blind to the possibility of the wound being caused by an "inferior" animal instead of another of mankind.
The author's argument is proven once again in P.5, where she lists off many myths involving heroes and dangerous man-eating monsters, in which the monster is always inevitably killed by man. In most, if not all, of the myths we have kept, man is portrayed as the hunter, and never the hunted.
4/4
2.
The purpose of paragraph 8 is to lead into the conclusion, in which the author warns the reader against the dangers of being too arrogant in our position as the hunter. Now that we have supposedly conquered the animal predators, she advises us to beware of destruction from the "inside": war against each other, TB, HIV, other viruses, and even the Earth itself.
1.5/2
3.
Ehrenreich uses chronology to develop her argument. Starting in paragraph 2, she relates man's journey and evolution from a "tasty mound of unwrapped meat" to a species that could mimic the claws and weapons of predators, to man as the hunter, and finally, to the point where we have forgotten of our existence as prey. In the conclusion, Ehrenreich again makes use of chronology as she leads from our enemies of the past that we have conquered, to our enemies of the present and the future that we must watch out for.
3/3
4.
In her introduction, the author describes man as a "tasty mound of unwrapped meat", just waiting to be devoured by a predator such as a raptor. Throughout her essay, Ehrenreich then describes how we have overcome the big predators and become accustomed to thinking of ourselves as "man the hunter". However, in the final two paragraphs of the essay, Ehrenreich returns to the idea of man as a vulnerable species - this time not from carnivorous monsters, but from small viruses and bacteria, and each other. In the end, man still just remains as ready prey.
1.5/2
5b.
This sentence is an allusion to the Greek myth of Perseus, a hero who saves Andromeda from a sea monster on the spur of the moment, just as he is passing by. The spontaneity and success of the rescue makes man seem so much more invincible and without equal. We are given the feeling that man can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without having to take predators into consideration. Unfortunately, this is not the case in real life. As such, this supports the author's thesis that the myth of man as a hunter has obscured our true vulnerability.
2.5/3
5c.
This is a parallel sentence. The author lists off our possible enemies: individuals, tribes, nations, ethnic groups....In short, everything and everybody around us is made into our enemies. Even though we have defeated the large land predators, we still have enemies in each other. We are not yet so invulnerable as to be able to afford to be arrogant and careless about self-preservation.
2.5/3
5d.
This antithesis creates a contrast between the attacks on the field of battle and the ambush of the lab. On a field in a war, all of your enemies are in front of you and clearly visible, and thus avoidable. However, the microorganisms and viruses of labs are so minuscule that most of us are unable to prevent their attack on our human body. This stark contrast makes the viruses seem much more dangerous and worthy of attention. The author is suggesting that while we have conquered big predators, we are still not the only hunters, and that we must beware of attack from all sides.
2/3
6b.
In "archaic drama", the author is referring to our primitive times, when prehumans would re-enact the story of a hunt, or a fight with a particularly ferocious predator. In choosing these words, Ehrenreich implies that even now in our modern wars with advanced technology, it is just a continuation of our ancient fights against big predators. Even though we think otherwise, we are not truly without predators.
1.5/2
6c.
"Incestuous" implies a sinful relationship with one's own family, one's own kind. Ehrenreich is saying that our endless battles against each other are wrong, even morally so, and that as with so many incestuous relationships that have been frowned upon by gods and man alike, it will ultimately lead to our own destruction. This supports the author's argument that even without the danger of big land predators, we are not safe, even from ourselves.
2/2
20.5 + 6 (style and mechanics) = 26.5/30 = 88%
In supporting her argument that man as a hunter has overwhelmed our image of man as prey, the author refers to the discovery of a punctured australopithecine skull found in Africa (P.3). We have become so preoccupied with the idea of almighty man that researched had initially been blind to the possibility of the wound being caused by an "inferior" animal instead of another of mankind.
The author's argument is proven once again in P.5, where she lists off many myths involving heroes and dangerous man-eating monsters, in which the monster is always inevitably killed by man. In most, if not all, of the myths we have kept, man is portrayed as the hunter, and never the hunted.
4/4
2.
The purpose of paragraph 8 is to lead into the conclusion, in which the author warns the reader against the dangers of being too arrogant in our position as the hunter. Now that we have supposedly conquered the animal predators, she advises us to beware of destruction from the "inside": war against each other, TB, HIV, other viruses, and even the Earth itself.
1.5/2
3.
Ehrenreich uses chronology to develop her argument. Starting in paragraph 2, she relates man's journey and evolution from a "tasty mound of unwrapped meat" to a species that could mimic the claws and weapons of predators, to man as the hunter, and finally, to the point where we have forgotten of our existence as prey. In the conclusion, Ehrenreich again makes use of chronology as she leads from our enemies of the past that we have conquered, to our enemies of the present and the future that we must watch out for.
3/3
4.
In her introduction, the author describes man as a "tasty mound of unwrapped meat", just waiting to be devoured by a predator such as a raptor. Throughout her essay, Ehrenreich then describes how we have overcome the big predators and become accustomed to thinking of ourselves as "man the hunter". However, in the final two paragraphs of the essay, Ehrenreich returns to the idea of man as a vulnerable species - this time not from carnivorous monsters, but from small viruses and bacteria, and each other. In the end, man still just remains as ready prey.
1.5/2
5b.
This sentence is an allusion to the Greek myth of Perseus, a hero who saves Andromeda from a sea monster on the spur of the moment, just as he is passing by. The spontaneity and success of the rescue makes man seem so much more invincible and without equal. We are given the feeling that man can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without having to take predators into consideration. Unfortunately, this is not the case in real life. As such, this supports the author's thesis that the myth of man as a hunter has obscured our true vulnerability.
2.5/3
5c.
This is a parallel sentence. The author lists off our possible enemies: individuals, tribes, nations, ethnic groups....In short, everything and everybody around us is made into our enemies. Even though we have defeated the large land predators, we still have enemies in each other. We are not yet so invulnerable as to be able to afford to be arrogant and careless about self-preservation.
2.5/3
5d.
This antithesis creates a contrast between the attacks on the field of battle and the ambush of the lab. On a field in a war, all of your enemies are in front of you and clearly visible, and thus avoidable. However, the microorganisms and viruses of labs are so minuscule that most of us are unable to prevent their attack on our human body. This stark contrast makes the viruses seem much more dangerous and worthy of attention. The author is suggesting that while we have conquered big predators, we are still not the only hunters, and that we must beware of attack from all sides.
2/3
6b.
In "archaic drama", the author is referring to our primitive times, when prehumans would re-enact the story of a hunt, or a fight with a particularly ferocious predator. In choosing these words, Ehrenreich implies that even now in our modern wars with advanced technology, it is just a continuation of our ancient fights against big predators. Even though we think otherwise, we are not truly without predators.
1.5/2
6c.
"Incestuous" implies a sinful relationship with one's own family, one's own kind. Ehrenreich is saying that our endless battles against each other are wrong, even morally so, and that as with so many incestuous relationships that have been frowned upon by gods and man alike, it will ultimately lead to our own destruction. This supports the author's argument that even without the danger of big land predators, we are not safe, even from ourselves.
2/2
20.5 + 6 (style and mechanics) = 26.5/30 = 88%