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 author supports the idea of Govt. spending on space programs based on the benefits reaped from "Space Race" of the 1960's between the USA and Russia. The author claims that the technological advances yielded by 'Space Race' had benefits - economic and humanitarian - which more than paid for the effort and money spent during the 'Space Race'. The author himself mentions that the program 'was very expensive'.
The author fails to consider the costs incurred on the program. Budgetary spending, or for that matter any spending of public money is justifiable only after a thorough cost-benefit analysis has been done. While author's conclusion is based purely on the benefits yielded by the 'Space Race', author fails to take into consideration the costs associated with the program. This proves that the author's argument itself is deeply flawed.
Additional data and facts and figures are needed to validate author's claims. For instance, it would be helpful to know what are the 'humanitarian benefits' that the author is claiming in the above argument? The author's argument talks very superficially about the 'tremendous number of technological advances'. It would be helpful to know a few such advances which have had the highest so called 'humanitarian and economic benefits' that the author claims.
Author's argument can be strengthened if some tangible numbers could be supplied in support of the claimed benefits. The author fails to establish how the technological advances made during a space program have translated into benefits to the humanity. Further, the argument needs to include actual figures on dollars spent on space program during the 'Space Race' and then show that these dollars are way too small when compared to the benefits reaped from the technological advances.
Before concluding about the allowances for future space program, it would be helpful to know if any other countries in the world have any similar programs running and if yes, then what kind of progresses have been achieved by them and what challenges are these countries facing.
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 author supports the idea of Govt. spending on space programs based on the benefits reaped from "Space Race" of the 1960's between the USA and Russia. The author claims that the technological advances yielded by 'Space Race' had benefits - economic and humanitarian - which more than paid for the effort and money spent during the 'Space Race'. The author himself mentions that the program 'was very expensive'.
The author fails to consider the costs incurred on the program. Budgetary spending, or for that matter any spending of public money is justifiable only after a thorough cost-benefit analysis has been done. While author's conclusion is based purely on the benefits yielded by the 'Space Race', author fails to take into consideration the costs associated with the program. This proves that the author's argument itself is deeply flawed.
Additional data and facts and figures are needed to validate author's claims. For instance, it would be helpful to know what are the 'humanitarian benefits' that the author is claiming in the above argument? The author's argument talks very superficially about the 'tremendous number of technological advances'. It would be helpful to know a few such advances which have had the highest so called 'humanitarian and economic benefits' that the author claims.
Author's argument can be strengthened if some tangible numbers could be supplied in support of the claimed benefits. The author fails to establish how the technological advances made during a space program have translated into benefits to the humanity. Further, the argument needs to include actual figures on dollars spent on space program during the 'Space Race' and then show that these dollars are way too small when compared to the benefits reaped from the technological advances.
Before concluding about the allowances for future space program, it would be helpful to know if any other countries in the world have any similar programs running and if yes, then what kind of progresses have been achieved by them and what challenges are these countries facing.
