The author claims in his letter that us, humans, should provide more importance to unmanned space exploration and invest in it. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this conclusion, the author reasons that space exploration through unmanned space probes and satellites have been successful recently without risking human lives to be sent to space. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little support to the authors' recommendation.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that few recent success regarding unmanned space probes means that the success rate of those unmanned space projects is high. This is merely a n assumption made without any solid ground. For example, we do not how many times the space organization failed in lauching unmanned satellites into space before having a success. The language used by the author when describing the success of unmanned space exploration is vague. Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if the author provided the success rate, that is how many times they tried and how many times they were actually successful.
Furthermore, the author does not provide any valid information about the success rate of manned space flight. Doing such make the argument presented by the author weak and unsupported by valid claims. It could be possible that the chances of failure of sending humans to space is significantly lower than unmanned space flight. To illustrate further, the author should provide more evidence regarding why he thinks manned space flight should be replaced. If the argument had provided the number of lives lost or the difference of the success rate of the two methods, then the claim would've been more persuasive.
Finally, although it is safe to claim that sending humans puts human lives on risk, however, the author did not provide evidence regarding it. As much as we know, it may be safer than unmanned space flights. It may be possible that several humans are injured and even lost in the factory during production or testing of the unmanned probes.
In conclusion, the author's claim is unpersuasive as it stands. In order to bolster it further, the author must provide more clear and concrete evidence perhaps in the way of a detailed analysis of the advantages nad the disadvantages of the two space exploration methods.
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/following-opinion-was-provided-l…
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 397 350
No. of Characters: 1985 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.464 4.7
Average Word Length: 5 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.547 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.895 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.672 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 524, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... that it provides little support to the authors recommendation. Firstly, the argumen...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 180, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... space projects is high. This is merely a n assumption made without any solid gro...
^
Line 5, column 583, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: would've
...rate of the two methods, then the claim wouldve been more persuasive. Finally, altho...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2035.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 396.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13888888889 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62041282261 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.482323232323 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 637.2 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9825312424 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.105263158 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8421052632 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.31578947368 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.263043927382 0.218282227539 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0943920656946 0.0743258471296 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0833944271911 0.0701772020484 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15483377974 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0728362585528 0.0628817314937 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.