GMAT Essays (AWA)

ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a science magazine:

"The "Space Race" of the 1960's between the USA and Russia was very expensive but it yielded a tremendous number of technological advances. These advances have provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. The benefits have more than paid for the effort and money spent during the Space Race and therefore the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

YOUR RESPONSE:
The Space Race of the 1960's between USA and Russia was beneficial as there were lots of technological advances at that time. Apart from that, economic and humanitarian aspects were boosted . This resulted in a great positive for the government at that point of time. However, the argument concludes by saying that the government must make allowances within the budget to pay for the manned Mars landing by 2020. This conclusion is not supported by the argument because there are several flaws in it.

Firstly, in the 1960's there existed a positive competition between USA and Russia. However, today the condition is not present as Russia as an economy is not that powerful. Also, the argument would be viable only if there was another economy which is willing to invest in the manned mission to Mars. However, that cannot be accounted for. Without this information, it would be risky in the part of the government to make allocations in the budget for a manned mission to Mars.

Secondly, Because of the increased price of technology and raw materials today, a manned mission to Mars would be risky as it would have a longer pay-back period. The competition between the countries in the world are so high that a miss in the part of one country would be a boon for another. For Example, If the USA spends billions of dollars for a manned mission to Mars, it cannot concentrate on other important areas like healthcare,unemployment and education. Meanwhile,If China, a strong competitor to the USA, invests in these areas and develops products of greater value, there is a shift in the balance of power. Without any more information and detailed analysis on this area, we cannot come to the conclusion as stated in the stimulus.

Thirdly, Investment in a manned mission to Mars could prove to be too costly rather than a unmanned mission. Greater Safety precautions are needed for manned missions. The argument does not clearly define any necessity for a manned mission and comes just out of the blue. Manned missions to any unknown extra-terrestrial location, leave alone Mars, is fraught with unnecessary risks. The plan, if failed, could cause the government to lose out on more important issues.

Finally, the argument doesn't take into consideration the present allocation pattern of the budget. It could be that the country is in terrible shape such as affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunami etc. The government could have priorities to pump in more money for the relief work rather than sending a manned mission to Mars. To illustrate this, we can consider that the argument was made when Hurricane Rita was ravaging through USA. The absurdness of this request would immediately have caused it to be dropped. So, we have to consider the position of the country in order to argue for the argument.

In Conclusion, Even though there can be several advantages as mentioned in the stimulus such as a greater technological growth, employment opportunities, economic and humanitarian growth, there are more points against the implementation of the plan just based on the information provided in the argument. If the above points are clarified, then the argument will be more logically sound.