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 concludes that the

environmental disasters potentially caused by Crust Copper
Company’s recent purchase of 10,000 square miles can be
avoided if consumers simply boycott the firm’s products made
with copper. However, the author supports his conclusion with
three assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken
the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the writer presumes, without evidence, that the
Crust Copper Company will use the 10,000 acres it purchased to
conduct mining operations. However, this may not be the case.
Perhaps the company acquired the land because it wanted to
present an image to the rest of the world that it was focused on
conservation efforts. It is possible that they will preserve the
land in order to remedy its sullied reputation from previous,
environmentally destructive operations. It is also possible that
the firm purchased the land simply as an investment and that top
executives have concluded the land will appreciate significantly
in value. If either of these scenarios is true, then the author’s
contention that disaster can be avoided if consumers modify
their purchasing behavior does not hold water.
Second of all, the letter to the editor claims that, if Crust
Copper Company mines the land, environmental pollution will
‘inevitably’ result, but this may not necessarily be true. Perhaps
the author of the letter is basing his claim on older mining
technology notorious for polluting the environment. It is likely
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 technique that results in little to
no environmental pollution might have been invented. In
addition, even if mining technology has not considerably
changed, there is potential that the company’s ability to clean up
and restore the environment has drastically improved. If either
case is true, then the author’s claim that pollution will
undoubtedly result is not warranted, and his suggestion that
customers ‘refuse’ to purchase the corporation’s product is not
overly persuasive.
Finally, even if it is true that Crust Copper Company
intends to use the land for mining and that this will result in
substantial environmental degradation, the author assumes that
consumers will have the wherewithal to determine which
products contain copper acquired from the company’s mining
operations. It is possible that Crust Copper Company
wholesales its copper to dozens, if not hundreds, of other retail
corporations and that its logo appears on none of the products.
Or perhaps its logo is obfuscated by other parts of the product or
buried deep within the product information manual, leading to
consumers being unable (or unwilling) to ascertain where every
component of the product originates. If it is true that the
customers find it challenging to select products without Crust
Copper Company’s influence, then the author’s assertion is
invalid, and his recommendation will do little to convince the
company to forego its mining plans.
 In conclusion, it is possible that consumers boycotting the
company’s products will have the intended effect of forcing
Crust Copper Company to abandon its plans. However, as it
stands now, the argument relies on three unfounded assumptions
that render its conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at
worst. Thus, the author needs to provide additional evidence on
three fronts: the company’s intended use of the land, the
potential for pollution from mining, and whether consumers will
be able to differentiate Crust Copper Company products from its
competitors.