“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."
In a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine, the author concludes that we ought to invest our resources in unmanned space flight. The primary arguments, given to bolster this clam, are the expense and treachery associated with manned space flight and the deftness of the unmanned space probes to glean important information. For this position to be properly evaluated, these two unwarranted assumptions must be resolved.
Firstly, the author assumes that manned space flight is expensive and risky, and thus, making unmanned space flight a more propitious alternative. However, the author has not made any concrete connection to prove that manned space flight is more costly and risky than unmanned space flight. For example, it may be possible that manned space flight is actually cheaper than unmanned space flight due to increased chances of machinery failure and the absence of anyone present to redress the issue. Perhaps, sending unmanned space flight to observe and collect information from the rocky and uneven terrains of Mars may not be the brightest idea, because of the frequent defects in the robots. To strenthen his/her argument, the author should have explicated, with the aid of statistics or some survey, why choosing unmanned space flight is the way to move forward. Therefore, the argumet is severely flawed.
Additionally, the author insinuates that the unmanned spave probes have been efficaious, because of the plethora of information obtained. However, the author fails to provide a clear link to display that information gleaning is the primary motivation of space travel, and therefore, requiring more investment in unmanned probes. It may be possible that space colonization is the primary motivation of space travel for humans, and thus, leading to more manned space flights. For example, if NASA and other interested private companies, like SPACE X, intend to pursue colonization of Mars in the next few decades, it will require a great deal of manned flight to take steps for the necessary terraformation of the planet. Therefore, the argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument is severely flawed and the author does not provide sufficient and pertinent information and statistics to back up his argument. The author should carry out a systemized survey to display that manned space travel is more precarious than unmanned oness. Therefore, the author's argument does not hold water.
| 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 |
- Claim: The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.Reason: Heroes and role models reveal a society's highest ideals.Write a response in wh 50
- The data from a survey of high school math and science teachers show that in the district of Sanlee many of these teachers reported assigning daily homework, whereas in the district of Marlee, most science and math teachers reported assigning homework no 50
- The following is part of a memorandum from the president of Humana University."Last year the number of students who enrolled in online degree programs offered by nearby Omni University increased by 50 percent. During the same year, Omni showed a sign 66
- “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 m 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 296, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ous than unmanned oness. Therefore, the authors argument does not hold water.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2069.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 388.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3324742268 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74749883843 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484536082474 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 647.1 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1654747477 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.705882353 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8235294118 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.70588235294 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.317743120056 0.218282227539 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10967441296 0.0743258471296 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0780592546347 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198734116854 0.128457276422 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0847777093923 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.