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.
The author asserts that the CCC Company has purchased land for mining the copper in West Fredonia but it is the area of some endangered animal species and mining copper will inevitably harm the pollution and affect those animals. Therefore, the author adds on his panacea that the only way the control the environmental disaster is by simply refusing the products that are made with CCC’s copper. The argument seems to be cogent but it relies on the superfluous grounds. Moreover, the author didn’t seem to have deliberate research on the issue. Once the CCC purchased the land, it would be loss for them to terminate their plans.
First and foremost, the author assumes that the CCC will hold back their plans just by refusing the purchase of the product by their consumer. This assumptions seem to be flawed in such a way that, to abandon such prodigious land would be great loss for the company itself. The CCC might run their project in much safer way by using the preventive measures such that it wouldn’t harm the animals and don’t result in environmental disaster. The author seems to confine his assumptions. However, he should have drawn out alternative preventive measure to conduct the plan.
Secondly, the author fails to mention that either the company have extracted the copper previously or it is their first time. It might need to be underscored because the author mentions at last that the consumers can simply refuse the purchase product that are made with CCC’s. But, if the company is hasn’t extracted the copper previously how they can refuse the products purchase. Therefore, in this respect the above arguments seems to lack some evidence, which obfuscate the issue.
Finally, the author assumes that the consumers will surely reject the CCC product. Nevertheless, there might be majority of consumer who are not concerned about the environment. Moreover, CCC might be the best company to produce the qualitative product of the copper. This in turn, means that the consumer who are more inclined toward the quality product, they will choose the CCC rather than refusing, in respect to the environmental issue.
In the nutshell, the above argument lacks persuasiveness. To bolster the above argument, the author should have meticulous research on how are the CCC consumer are they well concerned about the environmental issue, manifest the argument clearly about the manufacturing products of the CCC and the author should also deem such obvious tact as mentioned above that a company don’t want to itself face a loss. Therefore, the author if sheds the light on these factor, the argument will seem to be conspicuously persuasive.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 445 350
No. of Characters: 2163 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.593 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.861 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.563 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.747 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 144, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: These
...chase of the product by their consumer. This assumptions seem to be flawed in such a...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2263.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 440.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14318181818 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73711764755 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461363636364 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 683.1 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.3542770688 57.8364921388 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.761904762 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9523809524 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.80952380952 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => 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: 0.156072307421 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0527437718398 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0569107432317 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103074446713 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0552709734488 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.