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 recommendation to the editor of the Journal on environmental issue, it is stated that, to protect and preserve the in dandered species from the pollution, due to mining consumers should refuse to use the products of the CCC. However, before the recommendation is evaluated some questions must be answered.
Firstly, the author states that the CCC has purchases 10000 sq miles of land in West of Fredonia for mining, but fails to add additional evidence that the company purchased the for the mining. As, only thing we know is that the company has been purchasing the land for over past few years.
Secondly, author states that there are endangered species of animals in the West of Fredonian. However, had the land been purchased for the mining that contributes to pollution of some kind that will threaten the lives of the endangered animals than the government would not have allowed the sales of land to begin with. Also, if the mining is threatning then the effects acannot be limited to endangered species only, basically every living organism can get affected.
Lastly, the author mentions the pollution, but doesnot elaborates on the kind of the pollution and the after effects of it, if mining does happen in the Fredonia. Moreover, author suggests that the refusal of purchase that boycotting the products made by the CCC will affect the company and stop thatn from mining. So author should mentions the uses of the products of the CCC company as well. Then only we will be able to know how effective will the boycotting of the products will be.
In conclusion, the recommendation as it is has many flaws, due to its reliance on unwarrented assumption. So, if author could answer the above questions then the validity of the prompt could be properly evaluated.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 302 350
No. of Characters: 1440 1500
No. of Different Words: 141 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.169 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.768 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.628 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 103 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 76 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.231 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.065 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.846 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.652 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 223, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ers should refuse to use the products of the CCC. However, before the recommendat...
^^
Line 9, column 107, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[4]
Message: “So , if” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...its reliance on unwarrented assumption. So, if author could answer the above questions...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, well, in conclusion, kind of, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1487.0 2260.96107784 66% => OK
No of words: 302.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9238410596 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69409679428 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.496688741722 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 451.8 705.55239521 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.8082490976 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.384615385 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2307692308 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.92307692308 5.70786347227 174% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.208098305163 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0694892922702 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0615533577713 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105676849655 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0754903440104 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 98.500998004 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.