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.
---------------
argument 1 -- ' But such disasters can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper ' //1. CCC's copper may only make little part of the total profit, so it will not stop the company; 2. and...
argument 2 -- ' ... unless the company abandons its mining plans.' //it takes time and the birds may have died;