Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight.
The writer argues that unmanned space flight is more effective than sending men to space because it is productive, cost effective and less risky. However, the writer does not provide sufficient information to permit a proper evaluation of the argument's reasoning. Accordingly, the argument is not entirely logically convincing because it relies on wrong assumptions. Below are three major deficiencies that enfeeble the argument.
Firstly, the writer assumes that it is risky to send men to space. However, he does not back this up with relevant evidence or statistics that show how dangerous it is for humans to engage in space flights. It could have been convincing if the writer had presented a list of fatal space accidents. In other words, the writer could have emphasized his assumption by providing the findings of a comparative study of the risks involved in space flights when men are sent to space and when no humans are sent. In the absence of such information, the assumption that manned space activity is risky does not appear to very cogent.
Secondly, the writer provides no evidence to the claim that unmanned space flights are cheaper. There is no financial estimate of the cost of automated space flight in comparison with manned space flights. Thus, there cannot be any certainty about the cost effectiveness of unmanned space activity. Furthermore, manufacturing automated alternatives to humans in space flights could be very costly and thus defeat the purpose of cost-effectiveness that the author advocates. In addition, it costs money to monitor these automated space flights.
Thirdly, the author suggests that a great deal of information could be gathered thanks to unmanned space flight. Nonetheless, the author omits a crucial detail: accuracy and relevancy of information. Automated space flights might be useful in collecting an impressive amount of information, but how much of this information is really useful and correct? In other words, there will always be a need for humans to interpret data, analyze the findings and determine which information is relevant and which one is extraneous. In fact, automated machines can outperform humans quantitatively but qualitatively, humans will always be more advantageous.
In conclusion, the argument that unmanned space flights are a better option than sending men to space is not completely sound. The author does provide compelling evidence to back his claim. The argument could have been strengthened if the author used specific examples of the risk and cost factors involved in manned space flights. In the absence of such primordial data, the argument remains weak.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...s will always be more advantageous. In conclusion, the argument that unmanned ...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['accordingly', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'nonetheless', 'really', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thirdly', 'thus', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'in fact', 'in other words']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.251612903226 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.172043010753 0.15541462614 111% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0967741935484 0.0836205057962 116% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0623655913978 0.0520304965353 120% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0193548387097 0.0272364105082 71% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0989247311828 0.125424944231 79% => OK
Participles: 0.047311827957 0.0416121511921 114% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.94141107174 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0301075268817 0.026700313972 113% => OK
Particles: 0.00215053763441 0.001811407834 119% => OK
Determiners: 0.0924731182796 0.113004496875 82% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0215053763441 0.0255425247493 84% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0236559139785 0.0127820249294 185% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2662.0 2731.13054187 97% => OK
No of words: 420.0 446.07635468 94% => OK
Chars per words: 6.3380952381 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.407142857143 0.378187486979 108% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.297619047619 0.287650121315 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.242857142857 0.208842608468 116% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.15 0.135150697306 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94141107174 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 207.018472906 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464285714286 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 50.5121589278 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.2608695652 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.1038775198 57.7814097925 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.739130435 141.986410481 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2608695652 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.869565217391 0.724660767414 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 48.0227743271 51.9672348444 92% => OK
Elegance: 1.56779661017 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.451303081208 0.441005458295 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.120302863943 0.135418324435 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0629881236211 0.0829849096947 76% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.539189947278 0.58762219726 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.105140699875 0.147661913831 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.177417577946 0.193483328276 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0864368982038 0.0970749176394 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.407520206495 0.42659136922 96% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0904417146407 0.0774707102158 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.317613798898 0.312017818177 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0423822661466 0.0698173142475 61% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.