It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the author's argument in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine that they should invest their resources in unmanned space flight rather than invest manned space flight due to the costs and risks. However, the author assumes that several unwarranted assumptions that can strengthen or weaken the author's argument. Thus, in the following essay will analyze several assumptions of the argument in order to fully evaluate it.
First of all, the author assumes that unmanned space flight is not costly. It is understandable to think of unmanned space flight as safe than manned because it could not harm any people in the space, however, there is no robust evidence that unmanned space flight would be less costly than the other type. In unmanned space flight, robots or machines should do men's jobs on the behalf of astronomers. It looks rational to think that unmanned space flight without real human being would be more expensive that with human beings. It could be hard to invent an artificial intelligence that can think and communicate with men on the Earth.
Secondly, the author presumes that the benefits of unmanned space flight is over that of manned flight. In other words, the author seems to ignore a great deal of achievements of manned flight spaces. Even if there are recent successes of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites, whether it has more advantages over manned type is not sure.
Thirdly, the author thinks that unmanned space probes and satellites are similar to other types of space flights. Proves and satellites are just for sending the picture of spaces or receive the signals and give it back to the Earth. However, other types of space flights such as trips to Mars or other stars would be harder than just gathering information; it should include several tasks like passing a judgment related to their departure, safety, or other critical things.
Lastly, the author thinks that the letter to the editor of national aeronautics magazines will be effective to urge the nation to invest their resources in unmanned space flight. But, it would not yield desirable results to the author because a decision pertaining that which kind of space flights would be better would be made by experts in official organizations such as NASA. Thus, sending a letter to a certain magazine seems not the best choice for the author.
In sum, despite the author wants to persuade people (maybe who are working in the field of national aeronautics) to invest their resources in unmanned space flight, he or she should provide readers of magazines and experts with more rigid evidence related to the argument such as the costs and benefits of unmanned space flight, similarities between several types of space flights, the necessity of human being, and the effectiveness of letters.
e-rater score report
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 480 350
No. of Characters: 2347 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.681 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.89 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.463 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.575 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.388 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.631 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 59, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...cal, at first glance, to agree with the authors argument in a letter to the editor of a...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 368, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tions that can strengthen or weaken the authors argument. Thus, in the following essay ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rgument in order to fully evaluate it. First of all, the author assumes that un...
^^
Line 2, column 140, Rule ID: AS_ADJ_AS[1]
Message: Comparison is written "as safe 'as'".
Suggestion: as
... think of unmanned space flight as safe than manned because it could not harm any pe...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...and communicate with men on the Earth. Secondly, the author presumes that the b...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...antages over manned type is not sure. Thirdly, the author thinks that unmanned...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re, safety, or other critical things. Lastly, the author thinks that the lette...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ms not the best choice for the author. In sum, despite the author wants to pers...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, kind of, such as, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2396.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 480.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99166666667 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68069463864 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51395756505 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4375 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 741.6 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 88.8891666662 57.8364921388 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.111111111 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6666666667 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.77777777778 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.364419138082 0.218282227539 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134501950769 0.0743258471296 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0687521657869 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.206257739221 0.128457276422 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0759441945304 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.