The series of recent success of unmanned flights to space mission has been able to gather a lot of information. So more resources should be provided for such unmanned flights because of the higher risk and cost involved in manned missions.
A letter to the editor of a National Aeronautics Magazine states that we must start investing our resources in unmanned flights which are probably less risky and less costly too. Recent studies tell that these satellites have gathered useful information and completed the project with lower costs and not dangerous as they are no people in it. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, the following questions need to be answered.
Firstly, are the situations with manned and unmanned flights comparable? In other words, is the place like the distance it went away from the earth of manned and unmanned flights similar or can be compared. For example, manned satellites may go far away than unmanned ones. It results in gathering information that can't be done without people in it. If the above scenario becomes true, the conclusion may get weakened.
Secondly, Is investing our resources in unmanned probes beneficial? The evidence says that in recent times there is a success of unmanned probes for telling us the appropriate information, but there may be a chance that these failed in past times. If it is true, there may be a chance of failure in later times which results in no efficacy for our investment. If this is true, we need more evidence otherwise the argument gets weakened.
Thirdly, Is the research on unmanned ones done completely? If the research is not accomplished, then we may not be sure whether we are provided with accurate and precise information by the satellite. This leads to hampering our project as there is no required information. If the satellite doesn't hold to resistances of air in space it may get crashed and this is due to its incomplete research. If the above holds true, the argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the above questions and provide more evidence, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the argument and to increase our investment of resources in unmanned flights.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 353 350
No. of Characters: 1712 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.335 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.85 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.744 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 125 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.579 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.524 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 316, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...t results in gathering information that cant be done without people in it. If the ab...
^^^^
Line 7, column 291, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... required information. If the satellite doesnt hold to resistances of air in space it ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, for example, in conclusion, in other words, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1768.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 352.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02272727273 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84017604179 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505681818182 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 563.4 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.6727868299 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.0526315789 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5263157895 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.21052631579 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252871060909 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.075749621299 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0574448387218 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141284180034 0.128457276422 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0525471481815 0.0628817314937 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.