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

The extent to which consumers should buy products made from CCC copper is complicated in its impact. According to a letter to the editor of a journal on environmental issues, the author recommends that consumers refuse to buy copper products from the CCC in order to avoid natural disasters. To support his argument, the author quotes that the mining of copper on land will lead to pollution and endangerment of endangered species. Although the rejection of the use of copper products by CCC could to a certain extent benefit the environment, the causal effect is unclear due to unaddressed assumptions. First, the author wrongly assumes that the mining of copper on land would lead to natural disasters. The land acquired by CCC is not necessarily used for mining. However, the negative environmental impact can be eliminated if the CCC uses environmentally friendly equipment and strictly follows the rules or regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the assumption that this company threatens endangered species is unfounded. It is true that West Fredonia is home to several endangered species, but are most species purchased from the habitats of CCC Land? It is probable that West Fredonien is very large and the CCC has only a tiny part of the country so that these endangered species could still have a living space and sufficient resources to live and survive. It is also plausible that these endangered animals are very adaptable so that the mining of copper has no influence on them. Unless the author provides direct causes for the environment from the CCC, the assumption of a disaster is not convincing. In addition, the author believes that it is relatively easy and feasible for consumers to refuse to buy copper products from CCC '. This claim could be useful if people can easily find another substitute for CCC's copper. On the contrary, if CCC is the only company that supplies copper, then it could seriously affect people's normal lives. If all these products are necessary goods for the citizens, it may not be a wise decision not to buy them. If the company abandons its mining plans, the CCC could also consider other ways of producing its copper, which could lead to an even stronger impact on the earth and the land. Without assuming that the copper from CCC can easily be replaced by other products, the proposal in the letter is not convincing. Last but not least, the author tacitly believes that the mining program will inevitably be the culprit for a possible environmental catastrophe, and their failure would be effective to exclude the disaster. The assumption may seem convincing, but further research weakens its credibility. For example, the damage could be caused by global warming, overhunting, overuse of natural resources, etc. , and merely limiting a factor could be pointless. If copper mining is only a small part of the natural disaster, while raiding does more harm to the endangered species, adopting laws that hinder hunting could be more useful than limiting the purchase of CCC products from copper. Also, if CCC's main revenue comes from working with large companies or exporting to other countries, rather than from individual purchases, then such a lawyer would not make sense either. In such cases, the CCC can still make big profits and therefore does not have to make commitments to the actions of consumers. Therefore, the argument can be reinforced if we are offered evidence of the severity of copper mining. In summary, the editor's conclusion is based on several unspoken and problematically formulated assumptions that limit the validity of the overall proposal. To further reinforce the recommendation, the author should provide the evidence as follows: first, whether the CCC has a negative impact on the environment; secondly, whether it is feasible that consumers should not purchase products made of copper from the CCC and that they do not interfere with normal life; third, whether the environmental conditions are better due to such a policy.