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."
The extent to which consumer should purchase products that are made with CCC's copper has been complicated in its implication. According to the letter to the editor of a journal on environmental issues, the author recommends that consumers should refuse to buy products from CCC' copper to avoid natural disasters. To buttress his argument, the author cites that mining copper on land will result in pollution and cause threat to endangered animal species. While declining to use products made with CCC's copper might be beneficial to protecting environment in some extent, the causal effect is not unambiguous due to unaddressed assumptions.
To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that land purchased by CCC would be used for cooper mining. While it might use land in such was in many other case, we need further information to fully support it. On the other hand, this land can be used for many other purposes, such as building research center or headquarters or constructing storage. In addition, it is possible that CCC purchase land as an investment and would sell out when its price increases in the future. In such instances, negative impact to environment might be ignored.
Moreover, even if lands are used for mining, the assumption mining would necessarily lead to natural disaster is invalid. Threat to environment can be eliminated if CCC use environmental friendly equipment and strictly follow the rule or regulation from environment institution. In addition, the assumption that this company will threaten endangered animal species is ungrounded. It is true that West Fredonia is home of several endangered animal species, but are lands purchased by CCC habitats to most species? It is likely that West Fredonia is very large, and CCC only owns tiny portion of land, so that these endangered animal species might still have agreeable habitats and sufficient resources to live and survive. It is also plausible that those endangered animals are very adaptive, and so mining copper has no influence on them. Unless the author provides direct causes to environment from CCC, the assumption about disaster is not convincing.
Last but not least, the author assumes that it is readily feasible for consumers to refuse to purchase products made with CCC' copper and abeyance of it would be effective to preclude the disaster. This claim might make sense if people can readily find other replacement to substitute CCC's copper. On the contrary, if CCC is the only company who provide copper, then doing so might strongly affect people's normal livings. Additionally, damage to environment can be caused by many other factors. For instance, the harm could be resulted from global warming, overhunting, overexploitation of natural resources and so forth, and simply limiting one factor might be meaningless. If copper mining only constitutes a small proportion of natural disaster, while overhunting cause more damage to endangered species, then passing laws inhibiting hunting might be more useful than limiting purchase of products made of CCC's copper. What’s more, when the majority revenue of CCC comes from cooperation with big companies or exported to other countries, instead of individual purchases, then such advocate would also not be meaningful. In such cases, CCC can still make large profits and so do not need to promise to consumer’s actions. Therefore, the argument can be strengthened if we are offered evidences about severity caused by copper mining.
To sum up, as it stands, the conclusion by the editor is relied on several unstated and problematic stated assumptions that curtail the validity of the overall suggestion. To further strengthen the recommendation, the author ought to provide the evidences as follows: first, whether CCC will cause negative impact on environment; second, whether letting consumers not purchasing products made of CCC's copper is feasible and not affect normal living; last, whether environmental condition will be better due to such policy.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 637 350
No. of Characters: 3297 1500
No. of Different Words: 289 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.024 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.176 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.771 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 262 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 187 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 139 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 85 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.593 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.753 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.48 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 640, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mbiguous due to unaddressed assumptions. To begin with, the author unfairly assum...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 544, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...impact to environment might be ignored. Moreover, even if lands are used for min...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 723, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...fficient resources to live and survive. It is also plausible that those endangered...
^^
Line 5, column 954, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mption about disaster is not convincing. Last but not least, the author assumes t...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1346, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... about severity caused by copper mining. To sum up, as it stands, the conclusion ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, moreover, second, so, still, then, therefore, while, for instance, in addition, such as, it is true, on the contrary, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 29.0 12.9520958084 224% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3416.0 2260.96107784 151% => OK
No of words: 636.0 441.139720559 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37106918239 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02185627292 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05450985555 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 301.0 204.123752495 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473270440252 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 1047.6 705.55239521 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 2.70958083832 369% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.22255489022 284% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.4753521365 57.8364921388 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.333333333 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.625 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.208586923338 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0683681264813 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0443681836405 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127216739657 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0401794088691 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 167.0 98.500998004 170% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.