"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."
<span style='display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Minion Pro",Arvo,Georgia,Times New Roman,Serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;'>According to opinion in a letter to the </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); display: inline; float: none; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 3em; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">editor of a national aeronautics magazine that it is not necessary to have manned space flight to gather information of the space. The opinion also gives the reasons that the manned space is redundant as it is costly and dangerous as well as there is the recent success of a series of unmanned space. So, it suggests that we<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); display: inline; float: none; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"> should invest our resources in unmanned space flight. However, the opinion does not take certain assumption to make its conclusion valid.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;">At first, the argument fails to take the assumption of what if the machine would not likely operate in the space or what if the machine conduct malfunction in space. In the case, it is profitable to invest whole money in the Unmanned space project. It is blatant that the machine works more efficiently than human if they act accordingly to the set program. But, it is also true that they can malfunction on a certain time and in that case, it becomes a hazard. Perhaps, a machine or unmanned perform well but after sometimes it gets malfunctioned. During that condition, it can cause losses to the institute. So, it is not a good idea that investing in the whole sum of money in the unmanned space project. Thus, the argument does not hold the water in that case.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;">Secondly, The argument only based on the recent data of success. It is plausible that unmanned space is beneficial in gathering information of the space but this condition may not be applicable in the long term. What is the point if the benefit would not be achieved in the long term. The scientific discovery will be only effective when same result will be repeated in every proceed. So, without acknowledging long term data, the argument based becomes vulnerable as the process- unmanned space, may not be feasible in the upcoming year.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;">Thirdly, the assumption does not include the urgency of the human in the next space project to take data. The recent series of unmanned become successful as it does not need human to monitor the instrument. However, similar cases may not be repeated in the field of science. There may be a requirement of human resource in the data collection of the space as the field is dynamic and unpredictive. Thus, the argument again does not seems valid.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;">In conclusion, the argument might be considered warranted if it takes account of the above assumptions.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></span><br>
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-23 | Krisha Lakhani | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-17 | riyarmy | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-11 | Anish Sapkota | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-04 | DCAD123 | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-30 | BusariMoruf | 55 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is more important for governments to spend money to improve Internet access than to improve public transportation Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 66
- It is easy for family member in present than past 70
- In the United States, employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day. However, many employees want to work a four-day week and are willing to accept less pay in order to do so. A mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their empl 76
- People attend colleges or universities for many different reasons (for example, new experiences, career preparation, increased knowledge etc.). Why do you think people attend colleges or universities? 60
- In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways. But this effort has failed: the number of accidents has not decreased, and, based on reports by the highway patro 69
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 404 350
No. of Characters: 3194 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.957 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.288 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.26 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 217 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 176 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 132 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 108 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.455 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.328 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.324 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , Arvo
..., 0; font-family: 'Minion Pro',Arvo,Georgia,Times New Roman,Serif; font-siz...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 157, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , Times
...ily: 'Minion Pro',Arvo,Georgia,Times New Roman,Serif; font-size: 12px; font-...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 173, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , Serif
...n Pro',Arvo,Georgia,Times New Roman,Serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; f...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 3880, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'seem'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: seem
...tive. Thus, the argument again does not seems valid.
^^^^^
Line 1, column 3880, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'seem'
Suggestion: seem
...tive. Thus, the argument again does not seems valid.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, well, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3592.0 2260.96107784 159% => OK
No of words: 559.0 441.139720559 127% => OK
Chars per words: 6.42576028623 5.12650576532 125% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86242540663 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 5.16328532027 2.78398813304 185% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.418604651163 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 984.6 705.55239521 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 239.587884858 57.8364921388 414% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 189.052631579 119.503703932 158% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.4210526316 23.324526521 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52631578947 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 5.15768463074 19% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.138058850247 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0751658659769 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.075627091199 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138058850247 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 23.6 14.3799401198 164% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.12 48.3550499002 52% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 12.197005988 139% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 20.61 12.5979740519 164% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 68.0 12.3882235529 549% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 24.0 11.9071856287 202% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.