The extent to which consumers should buy products made from CCC copper is complicated in its impact. According to a letter to the editor of a journal on environmental issues, the author recommends that consumers refuse to buy copper products from the CCC in order to avoid natural disasters. To support his argument, the author quotes that the mining of copper on land will lead to pollution and endangerment of endangered species. Although the rejection of the use of copper products by CCC could to a certain extent benefit the environment, the causal effect is unclear due to unaddressed assumptions.
First, the author wrongly assumes that the mining of copper on land would lead to natural disasters. The land acquired by CCC is not necessarily used for mining. However, the negative environmental impact can be eliminated if the CCC uses environmentally friendly equipment and strictly follows the rules or regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the assumption that this company threatens endangered species is unfounded. It is true that West Fredonia is home to several endangered species, but are most species purchased from the habitats of CCC Land? It is probable that West Fredonien is very large and the CCC has only a tiny part of the country so that these endangered species could still have a living space and sufficient resources to live and survive. It is also plausible that these endangered animals are very adaptable so that the mining of copper has no influence on them. Unless the author provides direct causes for the environment from the CCC, the assumption of a disaster is not convincing.
In addition, the author believes that it is relatively easy and feasible for consumers to refuse to buy copper products from CCC '. This claim could be useful if people can easily find another substitute for CCC's copper. On the contrary, if CCC is the only company that supplies copper, then it could seriously affect people's normal lives. If all these products are necessary goods for the citizens, it may not be a wise decision not to buy them. If the company abandons its mining plans, the CCC could also consider other ways of producing its copper, which could lead to an even stronger impact on the earth and the land. Without assuming that the copper from CCC can easily be replaced by other products, the proposal in the letter is not convincing.
Last but not least, the author tacitly believes that the mining program will inevitably be the culprit for a possible environmental catastrophe, and their failure would be effective to exclude the disaster. The assumption may seem convincing, but further research weakens its credibility. For example, the damage could be caused by global warming, overhunting, overuse of natural resources, etc., and merely limiting a factor could be pointless. If copper mining is only a small part of the natural disaster, while raiding does more harm to the endangered species, adopting laws that hinder hunting could be more useful than limiting the purchase of CCC products from copper. Also, if CCC's main revenue comes from working with large companies or exporting to other countries, rather than from individual purchases, then such a lawyer would not make sense either. In such cases, the CCC can still make big profits and therefore does not have to make commitments to the actions of consumers. Therefore, the argument can be reinforced if we are offered evidence of the severity of copper mining.
In summary, the editor's conclusion is based on several unspoken and problematically formulated assumptions that limit the validity of the overall proposal. To further reinforce the recommendation, the author should provide the evidence as follows: first, whether the CCC has a negative impact on the environment; secondly, whether it is feasible that consumers should not purchase products made of copper from the CCC and that they do not interfere with normal life; third, whether the environmental conditions are better due to such a policy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 789, 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 these endangered...
^^
Line 5, column 129, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...o refuse to buy copper products from CCC . This claim could be useful if people ca...
^^
Line 9, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'editors'' or 'editor's'?
Suggestion: editors'; editor's
...ty of copper mining. In summary, the editors conclusion is based on several unspoken...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, while, for example, in addition, in summary, it is true, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3383.0 2260.96107784 150% => OK
No of words: 662.0 441.139720559 150% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11027190332 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.07241172033 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81289895944 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 293.0 204.123752495 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442598187311 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1046.7 705.55239521 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 19.0 8.76447105788 217% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.5980389825 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.296296296 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5185185185 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.96296296296 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247957936622 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0764073844009 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494810636244 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157483667732 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535600996889 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 174.0 98.500998004 177% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.