In the letter to the editor, the author concludes that the environmental disaster that is likely

to be caused by Crust Copper Company’s mining ambition on the recently bought 10,000
square miles land can be precluded if consumers forbid to use Crust Copper Company’s
copper products. This conclusion is based on the assumptions that the company intends to
use and the land for mining, which will prove pernicious to the existing endangered species.
However, if not circumstantiated these assumptions will dramatically weaken the author’s
argument.

First of all, the writer premediates that the company is going to use the 10,000 land
for copper mining. It could be possible that the company might be constructing a
storehouse perhaps to store the copper produced from other warehouses. It seems
plausible that the company has higher production rate and is facing problems in managing
its storage versus the total produce. So, it acquired a big piece of land to alleviate this issue.
This makes the author’s assumption about the potential environmental disaster futile.

Secondly, the writer asserts that the company’s copper mining will result in
environmental pollution, yet this may be based on the way older mining companies use to
work. This might not be the current scenario, thanks to ongoing research in ways to curb the
industry pollution, sophisticated remedies are now available which ensure that the pollution
is almost zero or perhaps at an innocuous level. Moreover, the mandatory adherence to
stringent mining laws ensure that the pollutions index of any industry must be below a
particular threshold which prevents to inflict damage to all the life forms(humans, plants
and animals all included). So in either of the case, author’s claim will not be warranted. This
makes the author’s claim about the dangers to endangered species extraneous.

At last, the writer suggests that boycott of CCC copper products result in making the
environmental disaster improbable. However, as we are unaware of the “current copper
market status” per se, CCC might be apogee of the copper world. Its product were of great
robust, aesthetic and came at a price that no customer would like to refuse. Moreover,
there is a possibility that CCC is also an avid supplier to some other industry as in
Automobile which is highly dependent on CCC’s copper products to continue their own
tasks, making them inadvertently to continue to buy from CCC. So if either of the case is
true, it puts the writers to contention to stop buying products from CCC in question.

In conclusion, the argument, as it is, is considerably fallible due its reliance on unwarranted
assumptions. However, if the writer is able to produce substantial evidence (perhaps from a
verified source) to support- the company’s intended to use of land, environmental pollution
from mining and whether giving up the use of products will be helpful. Then it would be
possible to fully evaluate the viability of the writer’s argument that the environmental
disaster can be prevented by resorting to abdicate the use of CCC products.