Hi, would really love some feedback on this essay. This is really my first practice, and I haven't followed any templates or anything, although i see a good one in the sticky and I think I should start using that. Also it runs a bit lengthy. I haven't edited it past the 30 minutes i spent on it as i want it to be realistic.
Thanks
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.
In the passage, the author seems to hold the point of view that the 1960's space race resulted in technological advances, which in turn yielded many economic and humanitarian benefits. The resultant benefits more than paid off the effort and money spent, thus a manned Mars landing should be planned to result in further technological benefits, in turn leading to further economic and humanitarian benefits.
The first claim the author makes is that the technological advances were the direct cause of the economic and humanitarian benefits. Yes, the 60's and 70's saw major advances in the field of technology. Yes, quite a few of these might have been directly as a result of the advances made in space travel research, which lead to technology that could be used on earth, from which major industries may have sprouted, thus aiding in job creation and economic benefits. The author though seems to be confusing correlation with causality. Just because the 60's and 70's were economically beneficial for people does not mean they were a result of the technology produced from space race. The 60's and 70's generally saw a lot of money being pumped into research and technology, apart from the industry directly linked to manned space travel. A lot of wealth creation also occurred due to progress made by the US after world war 2. Trade due to globalization also had a huge role to play in this, as did the developing service industry in the US. To ascribe the economic and humanitarian benefits without providing any significant facts and research speaking of the industries that developed due to the space race technology, and resulting people employed would leave the authors argument vulnerable to criticism.
The author also seems to maybe be taking a USA centric viewpoint. The 60's and 70's were not as kind to Russia. Granted, alot of that might have been due to the communistic policies of the regime in place in USSR at the time, but again, without solid evidence linking dollars/roubles spent to job created and economic growth will leave the argument unsubstantiated. Additionally, one could also say that it is not simply the endeavour for space exploration that creates economic and humanitarian benefits, but rather the policies of the governments in place at the time.
Another point the author seems to not have explored through further research is whether the dollars spent on space exploration might have had more of a humanitarian benefit and economic progress if it was spent directly to fund education, such as better schools and cheaper better universities. Right now, we are seeing a time in the history of the USA where the school system is tremendously underfunded, and university education, now necessary to progress in society, seems to be becoming less and less affordable. Yes, today is 50's years after the time the author speaks of, but none of these lapses in education systems happen overnight. They are due to decades of spending excessively in unnecessary sectors at the expense of funding of the education sector. Some of this money could also have been directly spent on poverty alleviation. For example, currently in the US, while the GDP is much much higher than in the 60's, and the US is more powerful than ever with more money going into technology research and the stock market much higher in prices than in the 60's, the poverty levels in the USA are also much higher. According to recent statistics, 1 in 5 people in the US is living below the poverty line. Sure, we might have more wealth in the economy, but more of it is concentrated in the hands of already wealthy individuals, while those without the means to get exposure to utiliing many of the technological advancements seem to be growing poorer.
In claiming that a mars effort would create the same kind of technological and humanitarian and economic benefits, the author also ignores how times might have changed in the past 50 years. the 60's was when technology first started coming into the mainstream. In the decades to follow, consumer and home electronics gained popularity. COmputers were a fresh invention at the time, and thus alot of progress could be made for each dollar spent on research. There is a point of diminishing returns for each dollar spent on research though. Just because each dollar spent in the 60's may have resulted in a certain number of jobs being created does not mean that in todays dollar terms, a similar dollar for dollar return can be achieved.
The author has also neglected the case of Japan. While Japan was not part of the space race, Japan was where a significant portion of technological advancements were coming from. Japan was one of the most successful economies starting in the 60's and 70's leading into the 80's. Consumer electronics were mostly made in japan and researched in Japan. How then is it that despite not participating in the space race, it was still at a level atleast comparable with the US in terms of technological development, and definitely above Russia.
The author could make the argument stronger by citing statistics and research studies. The studies could incude studies conducted on specific industries, and the resultant job and industry creation resulting from that industry. In this way, the reader could more easily assess whether it was worth it to spend that money on the space race, if that money in fact has been recuperated, as the author claims, from economic and humanitarian gains, and if there might not have been other industries that would have resulted in better dollar returns if provided with the same funding.
Thanks
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.
In the passage, the author seems to hold the point of view that the 1960's space race resulted in technological advances, which in turn yielded many economic and humanitarian benefits. The resultant benefits more than paid off the effort and money spent, thus a manned Mars landing should be planned to result in further technological benefits, in turn leading to further economic and humanitarian benefits.
The first claim the author makes is that the technological advances were the direct cause of the economic and humanitarian benefits. Yes, the 60's and 70's saw major advances in the field of technology. Yes, quite a few of these might have been directly as a result of the advances made in space travel research, which lead to technology that could be used on earth, from which major industries may have sprouted, thus aiding in job creation and economic benefits. The author though seems to be confusing correlation with causality. Just because the 60's and 70's were economically beneficial for people does not mean they were a result of the technology produced from space race. The 60's and 70's generally saw a lot of money being pumped into research and technology, apart from the industry directly linked to manned space travel. A lot of wealth creation also occurred due to progress made by the US after world war 2. Trade due to globalization also had a huge role to play in this, as did the developing service industry in the US. To ascribe the economic and humanitarian benefits without providing any significant facts and research speaking of the industries that developed due to the space race technology, and resulting people employed would leave the authors argument vulnerable to criticism.
The author also seems to maybe be taking a USA centric viewpoint. The 60's and 70's were not as kind to Russia. Granted, alot of that might have been due to the communistic policies of the regime in place in USSR at the time, but again, without solid evidence linking dollars/roubles spent to job created and economic growth will leave the argument unsubstantiated. Additionally, one could also say that it is not simply the endeavour for space exploration that creates economic and humanitarian benefits, but rather the policies of the governments in place at the time.
Another point the author seems to not have explored through further research is whether the dollars spent on space exploration might have had more of a humanitarian benefit and economic progress if it was spent directly to fund education, such as better schools and cheaper better universities. Right now, we are seeing a time in the history of the USA where the school system is tremendously underfunded, and university education, now necessary to progress in society, seems to be becoming less and less affordable. Yes, today is 50's years after the time the author speaks of, but none of these lapses in education systems happen overnight. They are due to decades of spending excessively in unnecessary sectors at the expense of funding of the education sector. Some of this money could also have been directly spent on poverty alleviation. For example, currently in the US, while the GDP is much much higher than in the 60's, and the US is more powerful than ever with more money going into technology research and the stock market much higher in prices than in the 60's, the poverty levels in the USA are also much higher. According to recent statistics, 1 in 5 people in the US is living below the poverty line. Sure, we might have more wealth in the economy, but more of it is concentrated in the hands of already wealthy individuals, while those without the means to get exposure to utiliing many of the technological advancements seem to be growing poorer.
In claiming that a mars effort would create the same kind of technological and humanitarian and economic benefits, the author also ignores how times might have changed in the past 50 years. the 60's was when technology first started coming into the mainstream. In the decades to follow, consumer and home electronics gained popularity. COmputers were a fresh invention at the time, and thus alot of progress could be made for each dollar spent on research. There is a point of diminishing returns for each dollar spent on research though. Just because each dollar spent in the 60's may have resulted in a certain number of jobs being created does not mean that in todays dollar terms, a similar dollar for dollar return can be achieved.
The author has also neglected the case of Japan. While Japan was not part of the space race, Japan was where a significant portion of technological advancements were coming from. Japan was one of the most successful economies starting in the 60's and 70's leading into the 80's. Consumer electronics were mostly made in japan and researched in Japan. How then is it that despite not participating in the space race, it was still at a level atleast comparable with the US in terms of technological development, and definitely above Russia.
The author could make the argument stronger by citing statistics and research studies. The studies could incude studies conducted on specific industries, and the resultant job and industry creation resulting from that industry. In this way, the reader could more easily assess whether it was worth it to spend that money on the space race, if that money in fact has been recuperated, as the author claims, from economic and humanitarian gains, and if there might not have been other industries that would have resulted in better dollar returns if provided with the same funding.
