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.
The argument quoted here to the editor of cited aeronautical magazine is unsubstantiated. Recent success of unmanned space-crafts does not necessarily guarantee its consistency nor proves unmanned space flight as deleterious. The author fails to provide astute observations and evidences and hence relies on unhinged assumptions to provide a badly-formed conclusion.
First, even though the author claims that manned space-flight is costly and dangerous, he fails to explicate why and what were his sources of inquiry. One can be certain that while manned space-flights would require most of the funds aimed at sustenance needs, but the same needs, if taken away- like in an unmanned space-flight- it would require those funds to be aimed at technological improvements to make the rover/craft more suitable. The author also doesn't state how manned flights are more dangerous. Did he draw this conclusion from a few accidents that have happened over time? Did he compare old technology to the newer age resources?
Second, the author states that the recent success of space probes and satellites has been illuminating. They appear to have accumulated great deal of useful information without endangering human life. While this may seem a plausible fact, it rescinds the nature of humans to machines. Machines does not have instincts like human do, hence, they are incapable of having insights. Surely men can have insights sitting at a control room, governing these space probes and collect more data without going in the next room but first-hand experiences tend to provide more insights. Insights form when there is a propensity for survival, if there's no fear to govern a system, gathering of requisite information is not possible- especially to a machine.
Lastly, since the author doesn't provide enough material to consume his insights upon the matter, one can simply argue that his views are biased and/or based upon older manned space incidents as terrifying and prone to a high risk of loss as compared to today's more advanced successes. It should be noted that not all space-tourneys require the presence of man. Simple collection of atmospheric data, communications handling are best done by automation.
To sum it all up, the author has espoused the idea that using unmanned space probes it'll be safer for human beings to carry out space explorations. While the author thinks this is a great idea, the argument is an evolved fallacy promoted by wishful thinking rather than substantive facts. However, if the author provides support of as to why manned space-travel is dangerous or why they require more cost, the argument would have a base. Also if the author explained how it is possible for future endeavors to solely be based on unmanned exploration without the insightful nature of machines, it would support his cause more. Above enumerated evidence, would dispel any ambiguity and strengthen his argument. Hitherto, the statement's veracity lies on a balance of probabilities and remains open for debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 295, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...needs, but the same needs, if taken away like in an unmanned space flight it wou...
^^
Line 3, column 329, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n away like in an unmanned space flight it would require those funds to be aimed...
^^
Line 5, column 725, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of requisite information is not possible especially to a machine. Lastly, sin...
^^
Line 9, column 445, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...e cost, the argument would have a base. Also if the author explained how it is possi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, then, while, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2568.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 500.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.136 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70961251842 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 204.123752495 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 823.5 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.3567697181 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.652173913 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7391304348 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52173913043 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.270276184116 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0746222857544 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0737457905446 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15812872196 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0444397503205 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 98.500998004 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.