First, the underlying assumption that the deterioration of environment and disturbance to endangered animals will inevitably occur is open to doubt.Ten thousand square miles are, without any doubt, so large an area that almost makes up the total territory of New York City. There is likelihood that only a very small proportion of the land will be used for mining.
Furthermore, with the advanced technology of waste disposal and environmental-friendly recycling, the pollution, if any, can be so insignificant that almost has no negative effect on the environment.
Even if the exploitation is indeed very heavy, the arguer does not inform us to what extent the mining areas and the habitat of endangered species overlap. If（假设法） they are located far away from each other, the mining would have little impact on local animals. Without taking these factors into consideration, the arguer could not successfully convince us that CCC’s mining process will bring about horrible results, and the boycott would be totally unnecessary in this case.
Second, the feasibility of the arguer's proposal can also be cast doubt on. The proposal could be smoothly carried out only if the consumers can reliably distinguish products that are made with CCC’s copper. We all know that only the brand of the final producer will be engraved to a product. For instance,(例证法）li'z if a copper lock is manufactured, consumers can only identify the brand of the lock company. It is unlikely that a nonprofessional consumer can tell the material supplier of a certain product.
Even assuming that consumers can effectively recognize copper products made with CCC’s copper, and that the vast majority of such consumers can be gathered by certain means, whether all of them are willing to cooperate in the boycott is still not guaranteed.（概括消费者的合作意愿） It is highly possible that（推测法） most consumers care more about the quality and cost of a product while little about environmental problems. If the consumers cannot distinguish products using CCC’s copper, or they simply have no interest in the boycott, the proposal would be meaningless at all, let alone prevent environmental problems.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive（E） and the arguer should provide additional information to demonstrate that CCC will cause a disastrous effect on the environment of West Fredonia once its mining plan is carried out. The arguer also needs to prove that the proposed boycott is not only practically feasible, but also sufficient and necessary for the arguer’s purpose.（S）