akhp77 wrote:Problem is in image



OA: D


I got puzzled in this problem.

Prasad bhai,

Its a good CR .

Ultimate goal of Nasa : To collect Information about Europa to know more abt if life existed or not.

Competeing answers : D& E

Let us whip of E! how ??

Americans feel that NASA's step is logical for the gaing leap in the future. Ok agreed! But it never mentions even after landing how far we can collect the "data" we required about extra-terrestial life. It never speaks about whether scientist/humans can look europa in all dimensions . It never speaks of hidden difficulties astronauts "may face when collecting the data about "life " on solar system.

How to support D??
Yes, that new Telescope does all the wonders better than a Unmanned Scienece Mission.

The argument is saying that because the public is more interested in space travel, and because NASA is switching from exploring Europa to traveling to Mars, NASA is doing this because of the public interested.

The answer that would weaken the critics point of view would show that there was some relevant cause other than public opinion that caused NASA to scrap the Europa mission.

D answers this because why would NASA continue with a mission to send a unmanned vehicle to Europa when there is a telescope that can gather better information? They wouldn't they would scrap the mission and go with another. Thus, NASA did not scrap the Europa trip because of public opinion. They scrapped it because the mission became wasteful. D provides an alternate cause (this is a causality question) for NASA to scrap the Europa. This is the correct answer.

akhp77 wrote:Problem is in image



OA: D


I got puzzled in this problem.

Answer E: this supports argument of critics not against them because Americans thinks launching a shuttle to Mars is good and Nasa actually did. Clearly, as critics said, Nasa serve the interest of public. Therefore, E is incorrect.

Answer D: show another reason why Nasa scraped shuttle to Europe, not because of serving interest of public. D weakens the argument of critics. therefore it is correct.

hope that helps

Thanks

I don't get it, D says that Tokyo has designed a new telescope which will totally change the way we look at Europa, thereby making the unmanned trip to europa, pointless.

Read the argument, the argument states that "Critics feel that NASA's decision making process places a greater emphasis on public interest rather than scientific research"

The question is, effectively, a weaken the argument question.

Take a look at option B, If it were true that NASA's budget was decided by the congress depending on public interest in NASA's operations, wouldn't it mean that the cancellation was not down to NASA's decision making, but the directive of the congress. Wouldn't this weaken the concusion?

vivek1110 wrote:I don't get it, D says that Tokyo has designed a new telescope which will totally change the way we look at Europa, thereby making the unmanned trip to europa, pointless.

Read the argument, the argument states that "Critics feel that NASA's decision making process places a greater emphasis on public interest rather than scientific research"

The question is, effectively, a weaken the argument question.

Take a look at option B, If it were true that NASA's budget was decided by the congress depending on public interest in NASA's operations, wouldn't it mean that the cancellation was not down to NASA's decision making, but the directive of the congress. Wouldn't this weaken the concusion?

congress decides NASA's budget, not affects its decision making process. So if seeing public interest the congress increases the budget, still NASA can decide whether to scrap the unmanned mission or not. (One common mistake in CR is to assume the 'obvious'. In real world it may be true that since congress allocates money to NASA, congress must have a bigger say in NASA decisions. But for CR we can not assume this 'obvious' unless stated in argument.)