-
bowleyjoo
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:41 am
- Location: Thailand
The author concludes that the budget should be allocated to unmanned space flight. To substantiate this conclusion, the author points out that recently many unmanned space probes and satellites have very successful results despite lower costs and risks than those of manned space flight. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for the author's questionable assumptions.
Most conspicuously, the author's line of reasoning is based on the flawed assumption that the information collected from space flight is the single condition to assess the investment on space travel. In fact, this is a dubious claim. There are still many factors which are remarkably important, such as the cost of material, environmental hazards from unmanned space machine, the human's instant decision during space investigation, and so on. Apparently, the author intends to ignore other relevant factors in order to buttress the unmanned space flight.
Also, it is senseless to summarize that since the unmanned space probes and satellites can accumulate the beneficial information, they should be the priority. Actually, this statement is not necessarily valid. The more evidences about the differences between the information gained from manned space flight and that of counterparts should be given. Possibly, men and women have better judgment than the machine. Therefore, the data from the former can be more effectively applicable. On the contrary, the unmanned space probes provide useful data yet all of them have been found before, not new information, so it is useless for the further use.
Finally, lacking of total expenses and exact number of incidents occurred during space flight, we can never evaluate the true meaning of costly and dangerous. The definition of meaning of each individual is different. Hence, it would be very helpful if the author can clearly demonstrate that, for example, the manned space flight is extremely expensive because it used up the budget over 50 millions dollars, and causes the fatal accidents to ten astronauts and researchers.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to prove that the useful data obtained from traveling outer space in the only criteria for the evaluation of space investment. Furthermore, the additional information about the advantages in all the aspects of both manned and unmanned space flight should be provided. Most importantly, the author has to offer the actual amount of money and the number of incidents. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing, and fails to persuade the readers.
Most conspicuously, the author's line of reasoning is based on the flawed assumption that the information collected from space flight is the single condition to assess the investment on space travel. In fact, this is a dubious claim. There are still many factors which are remarkably important, such as the cost of material, environmental hazards from unmanned space machine, the human's instant decision during space investigation, and so on. Apparently, the author intends to ignore other relevant factors in order to buttress the unmanned space flight.
Also, it is senseless to summarize that since the unmanned space probes and satellites can accumulate the beneficial information, they should be the priority. Actually, this statement is not necessarily valid. The more evidences about the differences between the information gained from manned space flight and that of counterparts should be given. Possibly, men and women have better judgment than the machine. Therefore, the data from the former can be more effectively applicable. On the contrary, the unmanned space probes provide useful data yet all of them have been found before, not new information, so it is useless for the further use.
Finally, lacking of total expenses and exact number of incidents occurred during space flight, we can never evaluate the true meaning of costly and dangerous. The definition of meaning of each individual is different. Hence, it would be very helpful if the author can clearly demonstrate that, for example, the manned space flight is extremely expensive because it used up the budget over 50 millions dollars, and causes the fatal accidents to ten astronauts and researchers.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to prove that the useful data obtained from traveling outer space in the only criteria for the evaluation of space investment. Furthermore, the additional information about the advantages in all the aspects of both manned and unmanned space flight should be provided. Most importantly, the author has to offer the actual amount of money and the number of incidents. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing, and fails to persuade the readers.
