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.”
Start:
The author of the article contained in the science magazine asserts notes that although the "Space Race" in the 1960's between the USA and Russia was very costly, the technoligical advances that resulted from this travel were invaluable. Those advances provided many economic and humanitarian benefits that have more than exceeded the effort and money spent the fund the space race. The author then asserts that the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020. The argument put forth contains many areas of weakness and could easily be strengthened by a few additions.
First, it would be helpful if the author was able to provide evidence relating the space race to the Mars landing. Is Mars attainable with the equipment and resources now available? If more equipment is needed, how much more costly and time consuming would it be? More importantly, how positive are we the a trip to Mars will yield any new findings that could lead to technological advances?
Second, since the manned Mars landing would be funded by the government, it is obvious that the taxpayers are the ultimate payee. The argument would be strengthened by providing evidence about the Mars trip in itself. The author could detail what kinds of possibilities are possible? How exactly will this trip affect me, the taxpayer? Moreover, is it not possible to instead extrapolate on findings from the space race in order to advance technology?
Lastly, there is a difference between the 1960's and 2000's. In 1960, technology was relatively new to the world. The author should detail that there are no other less expensive way to expand on technology, rather than space travel, that the government would be more willing to fund.
With the addition of the examples given, the author’s argument would contain less flaws and thus be much more persuasive to the target reader.
End.
Thanks for reading. Please leave and comments. Areas I can strengthen.
“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.”
Start:
The author of the article contained in the science magazine asserts notes that although the "Space Race" in the 1960's between the USA and Russia was very costly, the technoligical advances that resulted from this travel were invaluable. Those advances provided many economic and humanitarian benefits that have more than exceeded the effort and money spent the fund the space race. The author then asserts that the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020. The argument put forth contains many areas of weakness and could easily be strengthened by a few additions.
First, it would be helpful if the author was able to provide evidence relating the space race to the Mars landing. Is Mars attainable with the equipment and resources now available? If more equipment is needed, how much more costly and time consuming would it be? More importantly, how positive are we the a trip to Mars will yield any new findings that could lead to technological advances?
Second, since the manned Mars landing would be funded by the government, it is obvious that the taxpayers are the ultimate payee. The argument would be strengthened by providing evidence about the Mars trip in itself. The author could detail what kinds of possibilities are possible? How exactly will this trip affect me, the taxpayer? Moreover, is it not possible to instead extrapolate on findings from the space race in order to advance technology?
Lastly, there is a difference between the 1960's and 2000's. In 1960, technology was relatively new to the world. The author should detail that there are no other less expensive way to expand on technology, rather than space travel, that the government would be more willing to fund.
With the addition of the examples given, the author’s argument would contain less flaws and thus be much more persuasive to the target reader.
End.
Thanks for reading. Please leave and comments. Areas I can strengthen.
