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 conclusion in the letter is that more investments should be made in unmanned space flights rather than the manned space expenditures. The writer provides with a piece of evidence citing the success of series of recent unmanned space probes and satellites to support his or her idea. However, there are many unstated assumptions which the writer has not taken into account or provided enough details about.
First of all, the letter states that manned flight is costly and dangerous. On what grounds is the assumption being made, is unknown. There is no concrete evidence or statistical data provided regarding the costs or any casaulties which might render the manned missions dangerous. There is a possibility that The cost for sending unmanned space probes and manned space flight is same or the difference is insignificant. The letter also mentions about the risks associated with manned space flight but there is no explicit mention about what are those risks. Are the risks life threatning? Are the risks only limited to modicum of nausea, headaches and minor illness? These minor issues can be cured easily. As such there is nothing in the letter which helps to prove that manned mission are in fact, costly and dangerous. This in turn, weakens the conclusion to provide more funds to unmanned space flights.
Secondly, what is the efficiency of unmanned space probes in comparison with manned space missions? There is only a single mention in the letter about gathering useful information from satellites and unmanned space probes. It is possible that the unmanned space probes are not capable of doing any extra work in case a new task comes up. The unmamned space probe will only work accoding to how it is programmed. However, if there are individuals present they can carry out the extra work required. There is no mention about which is better at coping up with the emergency situations or tasks that suddenly may come up. The manned space program may be better than unmanned space probes by a very significant difference in their efficiency. If such is the case then there is no harm in spending money on manned space flights to obtain even better and useful information. As a result, this again weakens the conclusion.
Finally, space is full of unknown debris floating around since indefinite time periods. What if such a part of debris may hit a certain are of the space probe and needs to repaired urgently. There may be some help provided so that the unmanned space probe can repair itself. But there is a possibility that the debris hits and damages a part which the unmanned space probe is not able to repair itself. In such situations manned space flights have upper hand as the astronaut present can go and repair the damage. The unmanned space probe will be a waste if such a mishap is to occur. And on the other, by spending more money on manned space flights the mission is still going on and is not a waste. The conclusion does not hold merit if the assumption comes true.
As of now, because of a serious dearth of evidences, facts and statistical data, the conclusion stands flawed. If the writer of the letter is able to provide with much more irrefutable and concrete evidences, it would help to bolster the conclusion. And in turn would help to secure more investments and fund foe unmanned space flights in coming future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 567, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'risks'' or 'risk's'?
Suggestion: risks'; risk's
...ion about what are those risks. Are the risks life threatning? Are the risks only lim...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, in fact, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.5258426966 200% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2794.0 2235.4752809 125% => OK
No of words: 576.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85069444444 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89897948557 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51451946895 2.79657885939 90% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.420138888889 0.4932671777 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 882.0 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 20.2370786517 163% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.3338022355 60.3974514979 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 84.6666666667 118.986275619 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4545454545 23.4991977007 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.78787878788 5.21951772744 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.4259814027 0.243740707755 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113717809498 0.0831039109588 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0846483296335 0.0758088955206 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.239115163655 0.150359130593 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0929721024722 0.0667264976115 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.1 14.1392134831 71% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.8420337079 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.1743820225 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.55 12.1639044944 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.3 8.38706741573 87% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 100.480337079 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 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.