The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a journal on environmental issues. "Over the past year, the Crust Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over 10,000 square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a journal on environmental issues.

"Over the past year, the Crust Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over 10,000 square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and, since West Fredonia is the home of several endangered animal species, in environmental disaster. But such disasters can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper unless the company abandons its mining plans."

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.

Composition:
The author claims that customer's boycott could forbid CCC carrying out their mining plan could protect the African tropical rainforests on the West Fredonia. However, there are no sufficient persuasive evidence to support the advice though it seems appealing at the first glance.

The benefit of customers would be cared firstly. Refusing CCC's copper productions maybe could affect their works or lives, notwithstanding they can refuse CCC brand, which is forged on the direct-productions, how can they realize those indirect productions such as the wire or integrated devices? Once CCC provides their copper to other factory as wire corn, but customers cannot tear the plastically surface down to copper corn to identify if it comes from CCC. So completely refusing the CCC's productions is unpractical.

Moreover, if the CCC gives up their mining plans, other companies will invest to that land for their industrial projects too. Not for the copper mining, but cleaning the forests for cattle grazing, logging, automobile factory or building highways or dams, the local ecosystem would be destroyed too. So to prevent one kind of investment is not a property step, because we cannot refuse all the daily consumptions.

To protect the tropical rainforest, not only West Fredonia but also all rainforest nations should prohibit all kinds of extractive industry. Because the rainforest ecosystem is a delicate balanced web, the species depend on each other, one disappears, another extinct with it, which in turns destroy the entire web. So the sole plan of preventing the CCC’S mining plan is meaningless.

People would not believe the boycott to the CCC's products will entirely protect the West Fredonia's rainforests unless more information should be provided, such as the nature environmental information about the West Fredonia, the CCC's production list and the analysis of the plan's possibility.

Time 30 min

Thank You