"Manned space flight is costly and dangerous.Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight."
My response
The author would like to invest resources into unmanned space flights due to recent series of successful unmanned flights into space. This in turn would reduce cost and any danger to a flight crew. The author's argument falls short and it's unconvincing.
First, we are told that manned space flights are costly and dangerous but we are not given and further information on why it's costly and dangers. The author could have continued with this argument by stating how many man flights in the past have ended in a disaster and at what cost. This information would have enabled us to make a better decision on man flights vs. unmanned flights.
Second, we are not told if future space flights require humans to conduct research in space. If this is the case, perhaps manned flight are necessary in order to discover cures for diseases that cause the deaths of millions of people on the planet.
Finally, what if the mission is to prepare man for long distance space travel to other planets. If all resrouces are invest in unmanned flights than the mission to go other planets would never take place.
In summary, the argument is weak and unconvincing. The argument could have been strengthened if the author had provided the relevant facts in why unmanned flight are less costly and less dangers.
My response
The author would like to invest resources into unmanned space flights due to recent series of successful unmanned flights into space. This in turn would reduce cost and any danger to a flight crew. The author's argument falls short and it's unconvincing.
First, we are told that manned space flights are costly and dangerous but we are not given and further information on why it's costly and dangers. The author could have continued with this argument by stating how many man flights in the past have ended in a disaster and at what cost. This information would have enabled us to make a better decision on man flights vs. unmanned flights.
Second, we are not told if future space flights require humans to conduct research in space. If this is the case, perhaps manned flight are necessary in order to discover cures for diseases that cause the deaths of millions of people on the planet.
Finally, what if the mission is to prepare man for long distance space travel to other planets. If all resrouces are invest in unmanned flights than the mission to go other planets would never take place.
In summary, the argument is weak and unconvincing. The argument could have been strengthened if the author had provided the relevant facts in why unmanned flight are less costly and less dangers.
