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.
Although the "Space Race" has indeed yielded some benefits to humankind, exemplified by the technological advances in space flight in a relatively short amount of time in history, the argument above fails to provide any specific examples to substantiate this assertion.
First and foremost, the author claims that these advances have brought about economic and humanitarian benefits. However, there is a disconnect between this claim and how this contributes to positive economic growth in the first case. It is understandably far fetched to think that landing on the Moon has somehow improved the capital markets and allocative efficiency of the economy and somehow led to an increase in GDP growth. There is the possibility that the competition between Russia and United States during this era caused each country to focus economic resources toward the space industry, thereby creating additional jobs for contractors, manufacturers and engineers, however, this point was never mentioned.
In regard to the claim about humanitarian benefits, it is also difficult to deduce that sending astronauts into space has yielded similar benefits as a great individual like Mother Teresa assisting the poor of the world. Again, this is not to make light of the great achievement of sending someone in space, but more to critique the use of failed logic.
Finally, even if we assume these claims are true for the sake of argument, there is no reasoning provided that shows that this is the best use of government resources. Any time a government makes allowances within a budget, every decision needs to be made in the context of opportunity cost. It is much more plausible that an economic stimulus or other type of fiscal policy would yield greater humanitarian benefits than landing on Mars, which most would likely agree is an extraordinary achievevment for humankind, though not necessarily the best use of money when considered in a financial context for allocating scarce resources.
In summary, even though the author concedes that these endeavors were very expensive, the reasoning provided is very weak in that no specific examples were used to substantiate any of the assertions made. Moreover, it is very premature and illogical to suggest such a drastic in government policy as a result. The author ultimately does not consider the greater macroeconomic consequences of such assertions and how such a decision should be made in the context of allocating scarce economic resources.
"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.
Although the "Space Race" has indeed yielded some benefits to humankind, exemplified by the technological advances in space flight in a relatively short amount of time in history, the argument above fails to provide any specific examples to substantiate this assertion.
First and foremost, the author claims that these advances have brought about economic and humanitarian benefits. However, there is a disconnect between this claim and how this contributes to positive economic growth in the first case. It is understandably far fetched to think that landing on the Moon has somehow improved the capital markets and allocative efficiency of the economy and somehow led to an increase in GDP growth. There is the possibility that the competition between Russia and United States during this era caused each country to focus economic resources toward the space industry, thereby creating additional jobs for contractors, manufacturers and engineers, however, this point was never mentioned.
In regard to the claim about humanitarian benefits, it is also difficult to deduce that sending astronauts into space has yielded similar benefits as a great individual like Mother Teresa assisting the poor of the world. Again, this is not to make light of the great achievement of sending someone in space, but more to critique the use of failed logic.
Finally, even if we assume these claims are true for the sake of argument, there is no reasoning provided that shows that this is the best use of government resources. Any time a government makes allowances within a budget, every decision needs to be made in the context of opportunity cost. It is much more plausible that an economic stimulus or other type of fiscal policy would yield greater humanitarian benefits than landing on Mars, which most would likely agree is an extraordinary achievevment for humankind, though not necessarily the best use of money when considered in a financial context for allocating scarce resources.
In summary, even though the author concedes that these endeavors were very expensive, the reasoning provided is very weak in that no specific examples were used to substantiate any of the assertions made. Moreover, it is very premature and illogical to suggest such a drastic in government policy as a result. The author ultimately does not consider the greater macroeconomic consequences of such assertions and how such a decision should be made in the context of allocating scarce economic resources.
