"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 argument states that over the past year, the crust copper company ahs purchased over 10000 square miles of land in the tropical region 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. To prevent disaster author states that consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper unless the company abandons its mining plans. The argument is unconvincing and polemical since it makes illogical propositions that when put to perspective fails to withstand rational perusal.
To begin with author of the argument assumes that 10000 square miles of land purchased by CCC in tropical region nation of West Fredonia consisted of several endangered animal species without providing evidence regarding geographical distribution of animals and the land purchased by the CCC in West Fredonia. For example, it might be possible that the land purchased by CCC in the region do not contain endangered animal species or near it, if this is the case then there would be no harm to the animals when CCC starts copper mining. Therefore, author should have provided us that evidence regarding geographical distribution of the area.
Additionally, author assumes that to prevent environmental disaster consumers should refuse the CCC copper products. By stating this statement authors ignores several factors which are essential to corroborate author's statement which include quality of CCC copper products and production of it by CCC. For example, it might be possible that copper products by CCC are of top-notch quality and production rate of CCC might be greatest in the copper product market, if this case persist then consumers would not have choice to refuse CCC products. Thus author should have taken this factors in account before stating such statement.
Furthermore, argument assumes that mining of copper releases lot of pollution in the environment without providing data regarding this assumption. Author should have provided data regarding pollution stats before making such assumption for example, in this age of technology, the machines used in the mining of copper are designed such that they produce minimum of pollution that is harmful to the environment.
There are many unwarranted assumptions that significantly undermines the effectiveness of the argument given above and make it open to censure. As a reader we cannot agree with this argument which uses terms and data in crude manner and is at times of distorting facts.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 409 350
No. of Characters: 2156 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.497 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.271 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.713 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.267 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.939 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.639 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.14 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, if, regarding, then, therefore, thus, for example, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2197.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 409.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37163814181 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49708221141 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76759872533 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.444987775061 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 681.3 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.6835141442 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.466666667 119.503703932 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2666666667 23.324526521 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.06666666667 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.41153054243 0.218282227539 189% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143347672314 0.0743258471296 193% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.167849003056 0.0701772020484 239% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220789403906 0.128457276422 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.193751108049 0.0628817314937 308% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => 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.