"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.
In the editorial of national aeronautics magazine, the author concludes that we should invest in unmanned space flight due to the recent success of space probes in gathering information. The author argues that because of the low cost and risk factors associated with unmanned probes when compared to manned space flight, resources should be attributed in favor of it over manned space flight. However, the argument is rife with unstated assumptions and two important presuppositions must hold good for proper evaluation of the argument and adoption of the recommendation.
Firstly, the prompt’s premise - ‘Manned space flight is costly and dangerous’ is unsubstantiated. The author fails to provide any evidence or statistics for this statement. As the complexity of unmanned probes increases, the costs associated with it also increase exponentially because of the never ending need for reducing errors in each of its sub-components to improve the safety and quality of information gained. In contrast, the cost associated with manned space flight is almost constant over time, involving just the training and supplies cost for the astronauts. Also, with the improvement in sophisticated space technology and also due to stringent safety standards, the dangers of manned space flights are waned drastically. If the author had provided evidence in the form of quantifiable numbers for the costs and dangers, then the conclusion as implied in the argument can be fortified. However, the argument as of now due to its unwarranted assumptions doesn’t hold water.
Secondly, the author assumes that unmanned space probes are capable enough to do the same tasks as that of humans in space exploration. However, it is possible that some space exploration tasks cannot be done exclusively by space probes without the help of humans. For instance, consider the task of building the International Space Station (ISS) which required substantial amount of human efforts for successful completion. Such an arduous task cannot be completed by an unmanned probe. Thus, if the author had supported the assumption by citing an evidence for the capability of unmanned probes, the possibility of adopting the proposal is high. On the other hand, if the assumption turns out to be false, then the original argument is significantly weakened.
In conclusion, the argument makes a number of unstated assumptions that seriously undermine its validity. If the author is able to provide proper evidence (perhaps in the form of a research study) for the aforementioned assumptions then, the proposed recommendation of investing our resources on unmanned space flight can fully evaluated and adopted.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 327, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'evaluate'
Suggestion: evaluate
...rces on unmanned space flight can fully evaluated and adopted.
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 350, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...flight can fully evaluated and adopted.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, thus, for instance, in conclusion, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 12.9106741573 194% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2291.0 2235.4752809 102% => OK
No of words: 417.0 442.535393258 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.49400479616 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5189133491 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14197087078 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503597122302 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 714.6 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.210667304 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.277777778 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1666666667 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38888888889 5.21951772744 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.292485733462 0.243740707755 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101936012181 0.0831039109588 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0928764221184 0.0758088955206 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188126025131 0.150359130593 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0789227722315 0.0667264976115 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 100.480337079 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.