The argument claims that we should invest our resources in unmanned space flights. To bolster the conclusion, the author makes assumptions comparing manned an unmanned space flight. Though argument seems persuasive at the first glance, after keen observation it infers that the conclusion of the statement relies on assumptions for which there is not clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that manned space flight is costly and dangerous compared to unmanned space flight. There is not statistical evidence provided for the assumption made. For instance, the cost of automation for the unmanned space flight may exceed the cost estimated by the author. The argument could have been more cogent if the reference for the assumption is explicitly provided in the argument.
Secondly, the argument claims that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending humans into space. The terminology used in the statement is a bit misleading - " a great deal" implies more useful information or it could mean abundant information. The author fails to state what useful information is gathered by unmanned space flights which seriously undermined the manned space flights in the author's perspective. If the argument had provided the comparisons between the manned and unmanned space flights gathered information, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Thirdly, the author draws the prior assumption stating that recent series of unmanned space flights are successful in gathering a great deal of information. Different space missions have different motives to be achieved. Unmanned space flight could be safe but cannot gather all the information which is gather by manned space flights. Some space stations require human presence to administrate the system. The argument fails to provide logical reason between unmanned space probes and satellites and manned space flights.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the prior mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be more persuasive if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 379, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...gent if the reference for the assumption is explicitly provided in the argument. ...
^^
Line 5, column 462, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ermined the manned space flights in the authors perspective. If the argument had provid...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'thirdly', 'for instance', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.260981912145 0.25644967241 102% => OK
Verbs: 0.175710594315 0.15541462614 113% => OK
Adjectives: 0.113695090439 0.0836205057962 136% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0413436692506 0.0520304965353 79% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0129198966408 0.0272364105082 47% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0981912144703 0.125424944231 78% => OK
Participles: 0.0516795865633 0.0416121511921 124% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.82022790584 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0180878552972 0.026700313972 68% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.118863049096 0.113004496875 105% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0232558139535 0.0255425247493 91% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0103359173127 0.0127820249294 81% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2292.0 2731.13054187 84% => OK
No of words: 351.0 446.07635468 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.52991452991 6.12365571057 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.458689458689 0.378187486979 121% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.344729344729 0.287650121315 120% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.262108262108 0.208842608468 126% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.153846153846 0.135150697306 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82022790584 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 207.018472906 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48433048433 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 50.251919219 52.1807786196 96% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 17.55 23.2022227129 76% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.9736770141 57.7814097925 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.6 141.986410481 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.55 23.2022227129 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.75 0.724660767414 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 52.0229344729 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.78651685393 1.8405768891 97% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.495294400262 0.441005458295 112% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.111506841688 0.135418324435 82% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0593924681184 0.0829849096947 72% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.589201876528 0.58762219726 100% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.103455628092 0.147661913831 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.203278981912 0.193483328276 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112261312732 0.0970749176394 116% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.476704132393 0.42659136922 112% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.116355663112 0.0774707102158 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.33710237001 0.312017818177 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0916167455042 0.0698173142475 131% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.