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 argues that consumers’ boycott to products made with Crust Copper Company’s copper can prevent pollution and environmental disaster in the land that CCC has purchased recently. The author has come to this conclusion based on the premises of CCC’s copper mining behavior, the subsequent disasters, and the availability of finding CCC’s products by consumers. However, the author supports his conclusion with unwarranted assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the author is assuming that the company will use the land it has purchased over the past year to conduct copper mining operations. However, this may not be the case. For example, CCC acquired the land because it wanted to present an image to the rest of the world that it was focused on conservation effects. It is possible that they will preserve the land in order to remedy its sullied reputation from previous, environmentally, and destructive operations. If this scenario is true, then the author’s contention that disaster can be avoided if consumers modify their behavior does not hold water. Thus, to examine the argument properly, the author needs to provide a more convincing evidence that the purpose of the company about the land is to mine copper.
Secondly, the letter to the editor claim that, if CCC mines the land, environmental pollution will inevitably result. However, this may not be necessarily true. Even if CCC will use the land to mine copper, there is a possibility 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 technology that results in little to no environmental pollution might have been invented. In addition, even if mining technology has not been significantly improved, there is a potential that the company’s ability to clean up and restore the environment has been drastically improved. If either of these cases are true, then the author’s claim that pollution will undoubtedly be resulted is not warranted and his suggestion that consumers’ rejection to buy products made with CCC’s copper is not overly persuasive.
Third, even if it is true that CCC intends to use the land for copper mining operation and that this will result in substantial environmental pollution, the author is still relying on an unwarranted assumption that consumers will be able to have the wherewithal to determine which products are made with CCC’s copper. It is possible that CCC wholesales its copper to dozens of other retail corporations and that its logos appear on none of the products. Or perhaps its logos are obfuscated by other parts of the products or buried deep within product information, leading consumers to being unable to ascertain where every component of the products originated. If this is true that consumers find it challenging to select products without the company’s influence, then the author’s assertion is not valid and his recommendation will do little to convince the company to forego its mining plans.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide reliable evidence explaining three questions suggested above, then it will be possible to properly evaluate the viability of the proposed argument to refuse the products made with CCC’s copper.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 568 350
No. of Characters: 2917 1500
No. of Different Words: 243 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.882 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.136 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.978 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 218 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 163 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 131 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.048 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.621 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.337 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 717, 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
...true that consumers find it challenging to select products without the company's inf...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, 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 : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 28.8173652695 180% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3045.0 2260.96107784 135% => OK
No of words: 568.0 441.139720559 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36091549296 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88187981987 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22912425875 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.447183098592 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 950.4 705.55239521 135% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 2.70958083832 369% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.7174334544 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.0 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0476190476 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04761904762 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.241573536779 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0880704119053 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0746669981381 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153390314854 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0586329132484 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.3799401198 120% => 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: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 98.500998004 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => 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.