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.
-------------------------------------------------
With the successful launch of Sputnik, the USA seemed doomed to lose the space race, and in effect lose supremacy to the Soviet Union. The next goal, a planned moon launch, seemed impossible with not even a working man-made satellite. However, as the author points out, the USA poured in large amounts of research, and when combined with its talent, the USA was able to win the space race. The author then goes on to say that this effort produced many benefits for society in a short amount of time, and to realize more benefits we should invest in a similar project, namely a Mars landing. While the author's point of view has some merit, I ultimately disagree because the benefits the author cites are unclear, the promised technological advances may be fewer this time around, and the author does not examine other similar projects that could produce a similiar number of benefits as the original Space Race.
The primary weakness of the author's argument is his lack of evidence. He supports his conclusion by claiming the space race provided "many economic and humanitarian benefits...(which) have more than paid for the effort and money spent". His claims that both the space race had many benefits, and that those benefits exceeded the costs, are opinions, neither of which are credible without concrete examples. For example, when I think of space missions I think of inventions designed to help humans survive in a space environment, such as food in tubes and extreme sun reflection. Neither of these inventions are prevalent in our society, which experiences daily life in a non-space environment.
The author's secondary weakness is his assumption that the marginal improvements in technology will be the same. However, he neglects the face that much of the Space Race was focused on simply getting an astronaut into space and keeping him alive: the technology for this was credited to the moon landing, but will not need to be developed from scratch for a Mars landing. It is unlikely that the same number of new technological advances will come from a Mars landing as came from the moon landing, because we now have the technology to reach space and land on the moon.
His final weakness is his failure to consider other similar projects. In the paragraph above, I mentioned how the USA already incurred a fixed cost of getting into space, which was a large source of the Space Race's technological advances. Instead of a Mars landing, consider a different environment. What about being the first nation to build a city underwater? While Dubai is rumored to have begun working on an underwater hotel, the USA could build the first city. This would produce new problems, such as withstanding the enormous water pressure, in which the solutions would be applicable to more Earth problems than solutions from a Mars landing would.
In conclusion, while a Mars landing would certainly result in new technological advances, the author fails to present a compelling argument as to the importance of a Mars landing over other funding alternatives. It's unclear what benefits the author believes came from the Space Race, and unclear why these benefits outweighed the enormous costs for the program. Furthermore, even if these benefits were clear, there may be diminishing returns from the Space Race, so that a Mars landing will not produce as many economic and humanitarian benefits for society this time around. Finally, being weightless, space is unlike any environment on Earth, so a project on Earth, such as an underwater city, may yield technological advances more applicable to society as a whole than a project in space.
"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.
-------------------------------------------------
With the successful launch of Sputnik, the USA seemed doomed to lose the space race, and in effect lose supremacy to the Soviet Union. The next goal, a planned moon launch, seemed impossible with not even a working man-made satellite. However, as the author points out, the USA poured in large amounts of research, and when combined with its talent, the USA was able to win the space race. The author then goes on to say that this effort produced many benefits for society in a short amount of time, and to realize more benefits we should invest in a similar project, namely a Mars landing. While the author's point of view has some merit, I ultimately disagree because the benefits the author cites are unclear, the promised technological advances may be fewer this time around, and the author does not examine other similar projects that could produce a similiar number of benefits as the original Space Race.
The primary weakness of the author's argument is his lack of evidence. He supports his conclusion by claiming the space race provided "many economic and humanitarian benefits...(which) have more than paid for the effort and money spent". His claims that both the space race had many benefits, and that those benefits exceeded the costs, are opinions, neither of which are credible without concrete examples. For example, when I think of space missions I think of inventions designed to help humans survive in a space environment, such as food in tubes and extreme sun reflection. Neither of these inventions are prevalent in our society, which experiences daily life in a non-space environment.
The author's secondary weakness is his assumption that the marginal improvements in technology will be the same. However, he neglects the face that much of the Space Race was focused on simply getting an astronaut into space and keeping him alive: the technology for this was credited to the moon landing, but will not need to be developed from scratch for a Mars landing. It is unlikely that the same number of new technological advances will come from a Mars landing as came from the moon landing, because we now have the technology to reach space and land on the moon.
His final weakness is his failure to consider other similar projects. In the paragraph above, I mentioned how the USA already incurred a fixed cost of getting into space, which was a large source of the Space Race's technological advances. Instead of a Mars landing, consider a different environment. What about being the first nation to build a city underwater? While Dubai is rumored to have begun working on an underwater hotel, the USA could build the first city. This would produce new problems, such as withstanding the enormous water pressure, in which the solutions would be applicable to more Earth problems than solutions from a Mars landing would.
In conclusion, while a Mars landing would certainly result in new technological advances, the author fails to present a compelling argument as to the importance of a Mars landing over other funding alternatives. It's unclear what benefits the author believes came from the Space Race, and unclear why these benefits outweighed the enormous costs for the program. Furthermore, even if these benefits were clear, there may be diminishing returns from the Space Race, so that a Mars landing will not produce as many economic and humanitarian benefits for society this time around. Finally, being weightless, space is unlike any environment on Earth, so a project on Earth, such as an underwater city, may yield technological advances more applicable to society as a whole than a project in space.
