-
agarwalva
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:56 pm
- Location: New york
- Thanked: 9 times
Argument--
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological advances related to Space have become more than a hot topic in USA. There are those who are in favour of these programs and there are those who assert that humans are wastingprecious time and money on them. Though the author's claim may well have merit, he presents a poorly reasoned argument , based on several questionable premises and assumptions. Solely on his evidence we cannot accept his argument as valid
The primary issue with the authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. In his argument author asserts that space race of 1960's provided technological advances which led to benfits, without any substantial evidence. The argument would have been acceptable if we were enlightened us as to what where these benefits. How did the benfits paid of the effort and money spent on them. The authors premises lack any evidentiary support and render his conclusion invalid
In addition , the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. He makes a leap while assuming that , as the space race of 1960 provided benifts , the afforts and money spent on mars landing in 2020 will also provide equal benefits. The arument assumes that mars landing of 2020 is a viable spacce program and that that mars landing will have some humanitarian benefits. The proram may fail and may even not be comparable to the one in 1960. The goverment may have other priorities for budgetry allowances then the space program. The situation in 1960 and situation in early twenty-first century may well be very different.The space program may not be the right priority at this given time.The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between space program of 1960 and mars landing of 2020 .
While the author has several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that entire argument is without base. We need evidence as to what where the actual benefits of 1960's. Examples could have been the renewable resources from mars, and other satelities programs. We need evidence as to how there is a link between the space program of 1960 and Mars landing of 2020. Through these evidence the author can improve the argument siginificantly. We need evidence that government today can make this budgetry allownce and we dont have more pressng needs in other areas
In sum, athe authors reasoning is flawed , based on unsupported reasoning and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the Author truly hopes to change mind of his readers , he would have to largely restructure the argument, fix the flaws in logic , clearly articulate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things , his poorly reasoned argument will likely to convince few people
.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological advances related to Space have become more than a hot topic in USA. There are those who are in favour of these programs and there are those who assert that humans are wastingprecious time and money on them. Though the author's claim may well have merit, he presents a poorly reasoned argument , based on several questionable premises and assumptions. Solely on his evidence we cannot accept his argument as valid
The primary issue with the authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. In his argument author asserts that space race of 1960's provided technological advances which led to benfits, without any substantial evidence. The argument would have been acceptable if we were enlightened us as to what where these benefits. How did the benfits paid of the effort and money spent on them. The authors premises lack any evidentiary support and render his conclusion invalid
In addition , the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. He makes a leap while assuming that , as the space race of 1960 provided benifts , the afforts and money spent on mars landing in 2020 will also provide equal benefits. The arument assumes that mars landing of 2020 is a viable spacce program and that that mars landing will have some humanitarian benefits. The proram may fail and may even not be comparable to the one in 1960. The goverment may have other priorities for budgetry allowances then the space program. The situation in 1960 and situation in early twenty-first century may well be very different.The space program may not be the right priority at this given time.The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between space program of 1960 and mars landing of 2020 .
While the author has several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that entire argument is without base. We need evidence as to what where the actual benefits of 1960's. Examples could have been the renewable resources from mars, and other satelities programs. We need evidence as to how there is a link between the space program of 1960 and Mars landing of 2020. Through these evidence the author can improve the argument siginificantly. We need evidence that government today can make this budgetry allownce and we dont have more pressng needs in other areas
In sum, athe authors reasoning is flawed , based on unsupported reasoning and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the Author truly hopes to change mind of his readers , he would have to largely restructure the argument, fix the flaws in logic , clearly articulate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things , his poorly reasoned argument will likely to convince few people
.
