"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 writer of this piece of argument has drawn an optimistic conclusion from a disjointed idea that there should be an increased investment in unmanned space missions rather than manned ones. In support of this argument he has stated that manned space flights are dangerous and expensive. Also, unmanned ones help us garner a large amount of information as well. Thus unmanned missions would be a more frugal and a safer alternative. The argument seems plausible at first, however, a deeper analysis reveals several assumptions.
To begin with, the writer has prematurely assumed that manned space missions are costly and dangerous. He has not provided any evidence to prove this fact. It maybe possible that, several years ago, there were a few accidents in manned space missions. However, with recent development and modern technology, manned space flights may have become a safe alternative. The writer must provide some authentic statistics to prove that the manned space missions are indeed as dangerous as he claims them to be. If he is unable to support this assumption with sufficient evidence, his argument does hold merit.
Secondly, the author has presumed that the information provided by the unmanned probes and satellites is equivalent to the one provided by the manned ones. While it maybe true that they do provide useful data, this maybe minuscule compared to that provided by the manned flights. Thus manned flights with a little more investment maybe providing us with a large quantity of information, which is impossible to collect via unmanned ones. Therefore more proof is required to confirm the unstated assumption that the unmanned flights provide us with sufficient information, that will make them worth investing resources in.
Finally, the author has unfairly assumed that unmanned missions are safe and inexpensive themselves. However this might not be true. Though the risks and costs related to sending humans into space are obviated, there maybe several extra costs incurred in unmanned missions in order to ensure that they operate well without any human being in them to control their activities. Also the chances of them losing contact with the space stations are higher since there are no people in them to attempt to re-establish communication, if lost. This can be cause of major losses. At the same time, chances of these satellites and probes while launching or while they are still in the earth's atmosphere exist. In such cases they may explode or fall back on the earth's surface and be the cause of accidents as well. Thus sufficient data on the overall costs and risk factors associated with unmanned flights is imperative before drawing a conclusion that they are safe and cost-effective.
Thus, the argument made by the author of this analytical piece rests on several wishy-washy assumptions that might not be. He must gather suffient evidence to bolster his argument. Only thecan we appropriately analyse the vitality of the recommendation that unmanned missions are a safer and lesser expensive option to manned ones and hence most resources must be invested in them.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 505 350
No. of Characters: 2566 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.74 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.081 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.645 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 145 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.423 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.148 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.731 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.284 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.475 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.148 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 438, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...mpossible to collect via unmanned ones. Therefore more proof is required to confirm the u...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 102, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ns are safe and inexpensive themselves. However this might not be true. Though the risk...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 377, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ng in them to control their activities. Also the chances of them losing contact with...
^^^^
Line 7, column 546, Rule ID: BE_CAUSE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'because'?
Suggestion: because
...ablish communication, if lost. This can be cause of major losses. At the same time, chan...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 676, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'earths'' or 'earth's'?
Suggestion: earths'; earth's
...aunching or while they are still in the earths atmosphere exist. In such cases they ma...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 806, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... and be the cause of accidents as well. Thus sufficient data on the overall costs an...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, while, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 28.8173652695 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2624.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 505.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19603960396 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70582738059 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481188118812 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 834.3 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.6732021698 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.923076923 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4230769231 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.80769230769 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.315251802529 0.218282227539 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0840114005392 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0628884617592 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167987174603 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0642508301598 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => 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.