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.
In the letter to the editor, the author concludes that the environmental disasters potentially caused by Crust Copper Company’s recent purchase of 10,000 square miles can be avoided if consumers simply boycott the firm’s products made with copper. However, the author supports his conclusion with three assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the writer presumes, without evidence, that the Crust Copper Company will use the 10,000 acres it purchased to conduct mining operations. However, this may not be the case. Perhaps the company acquired the land because it wanted to present an image to the rest of the world that it was focused on conservation efforts. It is possible that they will preserve the land in order to remedy its sullied reputation from previous, environmentally destructive operations. It is also possible that the firm purchased the land simply as an investment and that top executives have concluded the land will appreciate significantly in value. If either of these scenarios is true, then the author’s contention that disaster can be avoided if consumers modify their purchasing behavior does not hold water.
Second of all, the letter to the editor claims that, if Crust Copper Company mines the land, environmental pollution will ‘inevitably’ result, but this may not necessarily be true. Perhaps the author of the letter is basing his claim on older mining technology notorious for polluting the environment. It is likely that mining technology has become at least somewhat more environmentally-friendly in recent years, and it is possible that it has become significantly less damaging to the environment. For example, a new copper mining technique that results in little to no environmental pollution might have been invented. In addition, even if mining technology has not considerably changed, there is potential that the company’s ability to clean up and restore the environment has drastically improved. If either case is true, then the author’s claim that pollution will undoubtedly result is not warranted, and his suggestion that customers ‘refuse’ to purchase the corporation’s product is not overly persuasive.
Finally, even if it is true that Crust Copper Company intends to use the land for mining and that this will result in substantial environmental degradation, the author assumes that consumers will have the wherewithal to determine which products contain copper acquired from the company’s mining operations. It is possible that Crust Copper Company wholesales its copper to dozens, if not hundreds, of other retail corporations and that its logo appears on none of the products. Or perhaps its logo is obfuscated by other parts of the product or buried deep within the product information manual, leading to consumers being unable (or unwilling) to ascertain where every component of the product originates. If it is true that the customers find it challenging to select products without Crust Copper Company’s influence, then the author’s assertion is invalid, and his recommendation will do little to convince the company to forego its mining plans.
In conclusion, it is possible that consumers boycotting the company’s products will have the intended effect of forcing Crust Copper Company to abandon its plans. However, as it stands now, the argument relies on three unfounded assumptions that render its conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. Thus, the author needs to provide additional evidence on three fronts: the company’s intended use of the land, the potential for pollution from mining, and whether consumers will be able to differentiate Crust Copper Company products from its competitors.
- Nuclear power plants are really devastating for the nature The nuclear waste that is created as a result of fission stays radioactive for thousands of years Also we had several nuclear disasters that have proven how unstable this whole system is There are 83
- All parents should be required to volunteer time to their children s schools Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and sup 50
- We have heard many people talking in recent times about the potential for exploiting the ocean floor for resources and the future of aquamarine agriculture and write y This just demonstrates that after we have finished with the destruction on land we will 68
- We have observed a gradual increase of the sea level during the last decades It is a slow increase and despite the alarmist attitudes of some it is nothing to be worried about By analyzing the data and looking into the matter clearly we can find that this 80
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any ot 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 583 350
No. of Characters: 3095 1500
No. of Different Words: 254 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.914 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.309 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.984 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 250 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 177 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 132 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 94 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.762 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.629 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.81 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...en the persuasiveness of the argument. First of all, the writer presumes, witho...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...chasing behavior does not hold water. Second of all, the letter to the editor ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on’s product is not overly persuasive. Finally, even if it is true that Crust C...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 766, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'selecting'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'challenge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: selecting
... that the customers find it challenging to select products without Crust Copper Company’s...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he company to forego its mining plans. In conclusion, it is possible that consu...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, thus, at least, for example, in addition, in conclusion, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 55.0 28.8173652695 191% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3196.0 2260.96107784 141% => OK
No of words: 583.0 441.139720559 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4819897084 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.91379618374 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13910805706 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444253859348 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 974.7 705.55239521 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.8524199522 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.19047619 119.503703932 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.7619047619 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.85714285714 5.70786347227 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.334168158829 0.218282227539 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109120953914 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.085512283534 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203236260903 0.128457276422 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0334893592512 0.0628817314937 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 14.3799401198 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.8 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 98.500998004 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.