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 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 mining copper on land would lead to natural disasters. The land purchased by CCC is not necessarily be used for mining. Even so, the negative impact 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.
Moreover, the author assumes that it is relatively easy and feasible for consumers to refuse to purchase products made with CCC' copper. 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. If all those products are necessary goods to citizens, not to purchase them may be not a wise decision. Additionally, if the company abandons its mining plans, CCC might think out other ways to producing their copper, which could cause even worse influence on the earth and lands. Without assuming that CCC's copper can be easily substituted by other products, the suggestion in the letter is not persuasive.
Last but not least, the author holds the tacit belief that the mining program will inevitably the culprit for possible environment catastrophe and the abeyance of it would be effective to preclude the disaster. The assumption might be seemingly convincing, but further investigation weakens its credibility. 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: 655 350
No. of Characters: 3422 1500
No. of Different Words: 298 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.059 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.224 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.767 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 271 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 194 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 147 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 92 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.259 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.851 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.477 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 646, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...us due to unaddressed assumptions. To begin with, the author unfairly assum...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 791, 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 3, column 1033, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t disaster is not convincing. Moreover, the author assumes that it is ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 774, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n in the letter is not persuasive. Last but not least, the author holds the...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1166, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... severity caused by copper mining. To sum up, as it stands, the conclusion ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, moreover, second, so, still, then, therefore, while, even so, for instance, in addition, it is true, on the contrary, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3555.0 2260.96107784 157% => OK
No of words: 647.0 441.139720559 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.49459041731 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04343084457 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31056935775 2.78398813304 119% => OK
Unique words: 312.0 204.123752495 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482225656878 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 1073.7 705.55239521 152% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 2.70958083832 369% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 85.0201132658 57.8364921388 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.565217391 119.503703932 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.1304347826 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.34782608696 5.70786347227 129% => 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 : 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: 0.224531989447 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0768042834236 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434478597534 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142445542859 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0494802318941 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 175.0 98.500998004 178% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => 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.