The following appeared in a newsletter distributed at a recent political rally.
"Over the past year, the Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster, since West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species. But such disaster can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans."
In this letter, the author recommends that consumers give up purchasing the products of CCC to prevent the contamination and environmental disaster. To support this recommendation he points out that CCC’s mining copper operation will end up with pollution and environmental disaster by buying a large amount of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia which is the living place for several endangered animal species. A careful examination of this evidence reveals that it lends little credence to this argument for several respects.
First, the author unfairly assumes that CCC will conduct mining copper on the whole amount of the land that has bought. It might have other purposes besides mining operation such as providing accommodation for the workers and their families in the proximity of their work to increase its production. In this case the pollution of environment related to the amount of extracted copper will be much lower in comparison with the case in which the whole amount of land is under operation. Without considering and ruling out this and other possible purposes of buying great amount of land this claim will not be corroborated.
Second, even if the company holds the purpose of utilizing the whole land for mining operations there is no dear evidence that demonstrates the administrators will successfully keep on following their goals. There might be problems in their long term activities to establish the plants over the purchased land such as financial and management problems. Therefore, without eliminating these possibilities the author can not substantiate his claim.
Third, considering the company will progress its mining operation over the whole land without facing any difficulties in long term, it can not reasonably be concluded that it will stop its operation when the consumers refuse to buy its products. If the author considers the regional or national consumers, the company might have other customers in other countries. Therefore, merely by omitting its domestic customers it will not be forced to ultimate its operation since it is still operating internationally.
In sum, the letter fails to convince me that the refusal of the consumers to purchase the products of the company will contribute to limiting the companies operation and less pollution and environmental loss. To bolster this argument, the author must provide authentic evidence that the company will work on the whole amount of purchased land and also provide more information about the long term decisions and performance of its administrators. To better assess the strength of the recommendation I need more clear information about the number of company’s customers and about whether it is working internationally.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2014-09-30 | zahravakili | 40 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Solitude, spending time alone, is one of our best teachers. 77
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Actions speak louder than words. 80
- People work more productively in teams than individually Teamwork requires cooperation which motivates people much more than individual competition does 80
- A person s own habits and attitudes often limit that person s freedom more than do restrictions imposed by others 75
- The purpose of many advertisements is to make consumers want to buy a product so that they will be like the person in the ad This practice is effective because it not only sells products but also helps people feel better about themselves 80
argument 1 -- not OK. what is the great difference between 'whole amount of the land' and 'part of land'? anyway it is going to harm endangered animal species. You can say: maybe CCC's land is not inhabited by endangered animal species at all.
argument 2 -- not OK. same as argument 1. you just guess. this is not a loophole.
argument 3 -- OK
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 432 350
No. of Characters: 2275 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.559 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.266 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.949 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.602 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.34 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.595 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5