"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 the 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 argument stated that the Crust Copper Company (CCC) have already purchased lands in tropical areas for the use of exhaling copper, and this will result in environmental disaster that corrupts the living environment for endangered animal species, and the author suggests that this can be prevented by stop using the products with their copper to let them stop mining from those regions. There are several missed assumptions not stated.
First, the writer assumed that the pollution will inevitably happen by acknowledging that there are no techniques can be applied to ameliorate the negative outcomes, and, thus, the mining will definitely decrease the number of endangered animals. However, as the environmental engineering and mining engineering is improving these years, it can be less harmful to the environment when some latest environmental controlling equipment are applied to control the pollutants while mining, and there are possibilities that the contaminants released during production are able to be controlled to the environmentally friendly level. Therefore, it is not sure that the mining will cause significant disasters to the environment or it can be ameliorated by using the latest technologies, and more researches are needed to support the conclusion.
Second, the author said that since many animals are living in the West Fredonia, they will be affected by the mining progress, without providing the exact geological distributions of animals and the mining location. If the tropical nation has a very high density of endangered animals in a small area where the mining group will not be able to approach, the mining progress will have little effects on the animals, which will not be strong enough to have a tremendous effect on the ecology of the nation. Thus, more information about the location of animals and mining company should be provided to support the argument.
Third, the author provided the assumption that people can refuse to use the product of CCC's to stop them from doing harm to the environment in the tropical nation. However, this is not easy to be achieved. Copper is being used in the world everywhere, from the medical equipment to the circuits in our house, and, if CCC is the leading company in the field of mining, it is impossible for people to not use its product without abandoning some of the benefits that we currently have. In addition, this abrogation of using their products will not help protect the animals in West Fredonia, because we are not sure where the raw materials of copper are coming from exactly, and the efficiency for protecting the animals will be extremely low. Moreover, if we stop using the product from CCC, other companies will view this as a chance for them to enter the market, and they might find other places to start mining and even destroy the environmental balance in other countries.
The author should deliberately evaluate the outcome if he or she is going to resist their product, and the decision needs to be carefully made in order to prevent further effects to the environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 439, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... not use its product without abandoning some of the benefits that we currently have. In add...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, third, thus, while, as for, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2580.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 505.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10891089109 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80310581596 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467326732673 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 811.8 705.55239521 115% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 36.0 22.8473053892 158% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 99.833560469 57.8364921388 173% => OK
Chars per sentence: 184.285714286 119.503703932 154% => OK
Words per sentence: 36.0714285714 23.324526521 155% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.92857142857 5.70786347227 121% => 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 : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.215464057679 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0761087780842 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0569366743727 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11798850651 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0767796900661 0.0628817314937 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.7 14.3799401198 144% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.94 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.3 12.197005988 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.95 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.4 11.1389221557 147% => OK
text_standard: 21.0 11.9071856287 176% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.