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 author states that an unmanned space satellite is less risky and requires less amount of investment in its development. It may be true from the author's standpoint but there a few missing points which the author needs to clarify before directly jumping to the conclusion. The author in his claim says that a great deal of useful information can be amassed using the unmanned space flight. However, by mentioning "great deal" we cannot truly judge the value and the quantity of the information garnered. The author needs to provide a much more figurative comparison between the information collected by both of these space invading prototypes.
In addition to this, the author needs to confirm whether the so called useful information that was gathered by the unmanned satellite, was stated "useful" based on only a single space trip made by the satellite or multiple rounds of space trip. Because if the data was stated "useful" based on a single space trip, it may so happen that in the subsequent space trips the unmanned vehicle might send redundant data back to us because of lack of human decisive power to it. Thus, the author needs to mention the count of space trips used for comparing both the vehicles and only then can we accurately decide the freshness of the information.
Also, it is glaringly obvious that the unmanned satellite will have less risk associated with it because of lack of human pilot. But, we can't ignore the fact that the unmanned satellite is just a machine like any other, a set of electrical components intertwined together. It will be programmed to do certain designed steps and nothing outside the designed scope. And, however accurate a machine is designed, it will always have some flaws in it and tend to deviate from its designed path. If such a deviation can be set right by human intervention, the unmanned vehicle will surely be at a loss if something of this sort occurs and the entire mission might get compromised.
Furthermore, the author claims the unmanned vehicle to be less costly. However, the figures stating the amount saved are not mentioned. Also, it might so happen that the cost required to set up a new facility for unmanned satellite production will be much higher than the cost required for producing a manned satellite as such satellites already have an established production facility. Also, the existing scientists and engineers need to be cross trained or new ones need to be recruited, which will further increase the cost of unmanned satellite production.
Examining all the various angles involved with the unmanned space satellite, the argument does not justify to switch to the unmanned prototype right away. While, the claim does hint a possibility of the unmanned vehicles to come into action in near future, more information pertaining to the pointers mentioned in the argument will be required from the author's part.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 485 350
No. of Characters: 2365 1500
No. of Different Words: 230 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.693 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.876 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.603 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.526 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.349 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.153 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 149, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ts development. It may be true from the authors standpoint but there a few missing poin...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 138, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...because of lack of human pilot. But, we cant ignore the fact that the unmanned satel...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, thus, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2459.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 485.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07010309278 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81593177871 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492783505155 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 783.9 705.55239521 111% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.8565860035 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.421052632 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5263157895 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.289015913887 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0904452782713 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0714416778473 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153990387965 0.128457276422 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0408374858351 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.