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.
The argument that 'priority' should be given to unmanned flight operations is based on the evidence of recently held operation which was able to gather enough informations from the space mission. While the line of reasoning is clear and persuasive, the author commits insufficient data fallacy, biased sample fallacy and questionable cause fallacy. If the author is able to bolster the argument by providing sufficient data along with the time stamps, it would look quite reasonable. As it stands now, it is not probably prudent enough to take a decision on whether or not unmanned mission should be in the first place instead of manned mission.
Firstly, the author provides facts that might be absurd to acknowledge in context of the argument. Manned space might be costly and dangerous but many of them had also succeeded. May be, author should provide some statistics to represent the degree of risk involved in manned operations. The cost of unmanned operation is not being included into the argument. What if, the number of mission or rate of mission related to manned operation is higher than unmanned operations? In such scenario, calculating averages of the cost between the missions, result would be astonishing for the author. The degree of risk involved in the manned mission is a point that might be considered as a factor in which author might be true, but as it stands now it is not wise enough to compare the two disparate mission without enough amount of data.
Secondly, The author commits bigger fallacy of questionable cause while trying to bolster his point. The author begins by considering one recent success as a major reason to judge the viability of the numerous missions. Although the recent unmanned mission might have been succeed, it doesn't confirm that next mission will be of same calibar. What if next unmanned mission become more costly and even failed? This example illustrates that author have to consider any incoming instances before estimating the fitness of mission. The author has also made serious mistake by not making a past data accounted into the argument. Where are the past data of the unmanned missions? Did previous mission also provide any success or was it debacle? If only the recent unmanned mission was able to gather useful information and previous didn't, it is not wise enough to make a change in the investment yet.
Finally, the author consider the biased sample to persuade his point. The author makes a point that the cost and risk associated with manned mission is high, but does that mean unmanned mission is least efficient than manned mission. We all know that, until now man are only intelligent being on the earth and although probes and satellite are intelligent enough but not quite to the level of human. While dealing with such critical mission associated with space travel which includes big chunk of money and laborious tasks of many people, failing out to make intelligent decision may cost severe damage. Even, the space are subjected to high risk, anything can happen anytime; thus human must be capable of dealing such unpredicted events with better prudence than machine. Thus, we cannot consider that we should invest our plentyful resources in unmanned mission without considering these points.
In sum, the argument has several flaws but the intent argument posses is considerable. If the author is capable of addressing the gaps made by absurd statements by providing certain statistics or open-ended interviews, argument might sound more convincing.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/following-opinion-was-provided-l…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 583 350
No. of Characters: 2895 1500
No. of Different Words: 263 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.914 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.966 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.511 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 236 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 159 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.821 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.307 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.465 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 557, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...ly prudent enough to take a decision on whether or not unmanned mission should be in the first...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 274, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'succeeded'.
Suggestion: succeeded
...recent unmanned mission might have been succeed, it doesnt confirm that next mission wi...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 286, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ned mission might have been succeed, it doesnt confirm that next mission will be of sa...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 827, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... gather useful information and previous didnt, it is not wise enough to make a change...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, thus, while, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2962.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 581.0 441.139720559 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09810671256 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90957651803 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57423574962 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 271.0 204.123752495 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466437177281 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 924.3 705.55239521 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.0763978494 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.785714286 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.75 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.71428571429 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141395480982 0.218282227539 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0468794088597 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0379978372102 0.0701772020484 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0837590964214 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0331373665262 0.0628817314937 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => 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.