Thank you in advance!!

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.

A vast area in the tropical nation of West Fredonia has been bought by a mining corporation, the Crust Copper Company(CCC). A letter addressed to an environmental journal's editor, suggesting that this action will cause pollution and other natural calamities to arise and these detriments could be precluded only if all customers stop buying CCC's products or the company renounce its mining schedules. However, this opinion implies several bold assumptions which, if prove unfounded, would intensively weaken the arguments.

First of all, the writer presumes that any implementations of mining would lead to contamination of environs and threats to wild lives. Although generally, industries might exploit local natural resources and give rise to waste emissions, further details are needed in order to analyse the situation of each particular case. For instance, if CCC has a well-devised blueprint for sustainable mining activities, only taking place at restricted area and in a reasonable period of the year to avoid disturbing local species, it is not likely to harm nature to a great extent. And then the assertion in the letter will then fail at the very beginning, as there might be no such disasters to be concerned. Since no information has been given about CCC's specified mining plan in a spatial and temporal scale, one cannot simply suggest that its existence will have cataclysmic effects on the natural environment.

Also, the company's reaction to the consumers' avoidance is oversimplified in the letter. If the copper mining activities have been seriously menacing the environmental conditions and everyone has agreed to stay away from CCC's products, the company may respond in different ways. It might collapse due to bankruptcy, but it may not well recognise its faults and otherwise seek other strategies to attract customers. These might include more intensive mining enforcements to improve the quality of their commodities, further refinement of the manufacturing processes, and even an expansion of their existing repertoire. These are certainly not about to alleviate any existing environmental issues, on the contrary, the situation might be aggravated. As a result, simply depriving the corporation of customers would not necessarily appease the harm to nature.

What is more, the writer pointed out that the negative outcomes could be precluded if CCC gave up their mining plan. This seems plausible at the first glance, nevertheless, it over-positively assumed that not only the mining actions but also all of the ancillary effects would be cut off at once. Unfortunately, some accessories may be long-lasting and cannot be eradicated swiftly, such as the wasted mining sites, unfinished construction sites and other infrastructures accompanying the mining activities. Furthermore, even though the lands were cleared as rapidly as possible with the abeyance of mining, it will still take a long period for the environment to resuscitate and if possible, to resume to its original settings. As a consequence, it is irresponsible to assert that the harms would be prevented if CCC forgoes their mining schedules.

In conclusion, the statements in the letter heavily based on the three major assumptions discussed above, which evidently requires further evidence to be confirmed, in order to comprehensively evaluate this issue.