The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine:
“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."
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.
While the author may have a legitimate reservation for the risks involved in manned space flight, the argument placed forth has a lack of solid data and consists of assumptions, which make the argument difficult to evaluate. The argument also fails to mention the reasons which make manned space flight costly and dangerous and at the same time, there has been no comparison on the effectiveness between manned and unmanned space flight. This lack of underlying information and solid data, along with assumptions which are rather weak, unconvincing and have several flaws in them, bring about a demand for a closer, more detailed examination.
The author has mentioned that manned space flight is costly without mentioning the underlying reasons as to why this is the case. Perhaps manned space flights have a wider set of objectives to be fulfilled in contrast to unmanned space flights and hence there is an accompanying rise in the expenses involved. The rise in costs could also have been due to the training of the astronauts involved in the space flight and hence the reasons for the high costs of training should be examined and hence corrective measure must be taken. Without the inclusion of such vital facts, the author's argument does not hold much weight.
Additionally, the author has also claimed that manned space flight is dangerous, but there has been no statistics provided to give us a context of the danger involved in such operations. Without statistics involving a comparison between the failures of manned space flights and unmanned space flights, it is unreasonable to attack manned space flights. At the same time, there has been no inclusion of data regarding the probability of such risks involved. For example, if the probability of a failure in a manned operation is 1 percent, while the probability of the failure in an unmanned mission is 10%, we can definitely overlook this difference. Hence, in the absence of concrete figures regarding such data, the authors' argument is difficult to substantiate.
Moreover, while there has been a mention of the successes of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites, there has been no such inclusion of similar statistics for manned space flight. If the author had the data which proved the repeated failures of manned space flights over the last couple of years, the author's argument could hold true and hence necessary action could be taken. As it pointed out by the author regarding the successes of the unmanned space flights, it is highly plausible that the manned space flights have also been highly successful concurrently and there is only a higher degree of risk and costs involved. The author could have strengthened his stance by including factual data regarding the probability of failures or an actual instance of a failed manned space flight and its consequences. This again has been omitted by the author and hence fails to deliver.
Though the author does mention investing in unmanned space flight due to its supposedly low risks and low costs, he has failed to mention the advantages or disadvantages of investing in manned space flights. It is highly probable that investing in unmanned space flight shall not reap great positive results as it is already at its peak and further investing shall lead to diminishing returns and instead invest in manned space flight with agenda to reduce costs by finding out the inadequacies and plugging those costs could actually pose benefit. Again, this is omitted by the author.
In conclusion, the author could have a legitimate concern about the risks involved with manned space flight, but without providing us with solid information and figures regarding the probabilities and risks, there is little to ruminate upon. Also, the lack of supporting evidence of actual disasters or such failures puts us under the impression that the claim is just more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence and therefore, fails to deliver.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
argument 4 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
It is on the wrong track for arguments. for example,
'Manned space flight is costly and dangerous'
we can't argue just by asking evidence. we may argue like:
1. the author assumes unmanned space flight is not costly.
2. the author assumes Manned space flight will not improve in safety.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: ?Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 653 350
No. of Characters: 3262 1500
No. of Different Words: 249 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.055 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.995 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.656 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 244 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 176 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 124 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.682 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.814 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.773 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.379 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.578 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.153 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 595, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ave several flaws in them, bring about a demand for a closer, more detailed exami...
^^
Line 3, column 580, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... the inclusion of such vital facts, the authors argument does not hold much weight. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 718, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ncrete figures regarding such data, the authors argument is difficult to substantiate. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 313, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ghts over the last couple of years, the authors argument could hold true and hence nece...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, hence, if, look, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, while, as to, for example, in conclusion, in contrast, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 28.0 11.1786427146 250% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 90.0 55.5748502994 162% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3333.0 2260.96107784 147% => OK
No of words: 653.0 441.139720559 148% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10413476263 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.05508305356 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71594451833 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.381316998469 0.468620217663 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1033.2 705.55239521 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 65.8827690386 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.5 119.503703932 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.6818181818 23.324526521 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274558201149 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101586765995 0.0743258471296 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0882599484555 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168410653037 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0522016789617 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 14.3799401198 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.3550499002 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 98.500998004 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.