PROMPT: 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.
The author, in the preceding lines, claims that the space race of the 1960's between USA and Russia led to many technological advancements. These advancements had many economic and humanitarian benefits. The author states that the money spent during the space race was compensated by the many benefits which resulted from the space missions. Based on this argument, the author further suggests that government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing in the future. The author present a poorly reasoned and an unsubstantiated argument. On closer look the argument appears not only to be flawed in reasoning but also unconvincing and non-compelling.
The primary issue with the argument is that the author provides no evidence for the claims made in the given statements. Though it is common knowledge that USA and Russia have made tremendous technological growth in the 1960's, but if it was a direct outcome of their space programs is not proven. The author provides no data as to what economic and humanitarian benefits were a direct result of the space programs. It could be that both events were completely independent of each other.
Second, the author should provide a cost benefit analysis comparing the huge amounts of money spent on space programs with the value of benefits that he claims to be an outcome of these missions. He should clearly state what research was undertaken in each of these programs and how it benefited mankind. The author should also take into account the time and effort spent on the space programs. He must consider the fact that many space missions failed before the two countries were successful in putting man into space. The cost of failure should also be accounted.
Third, the author assumes that many technological advancements shall result if a manned Mars mission is successful. This assumption is much skewed and the author does not carry a holistic approach. We need to realise the need of the situation, the needs of humanity at this point. The author should provide an explanation as to what problems will a manned mission to Mars help solve. Though there are several issues with the authors reasoning at present, but with research and clarifications the argument can be improved significantly.
In sum, the author must restructure the argument, fix flaws in logic, explain the assumptions and provide evidence. Without the steps mentioned above, the argument will likely convince a 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."
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.
The author, in the preceding lines, claims that the space race of the 1960's between USA and Russia led to many technological advancements. These advancements had many economic and humanitarian benefits. The author states that the money spent during the space race was compensated by the many benefits which resulted from the space missions. Based on this argument, the author further suggests that government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing in the future. The author present a poorly reasoned and an unsubstantiated argument. On closer look the argument appears not only to be flawed in reasoning but also unconvincing and non-compelling.
The primary issue with the argument is that the author provides no evidence for the claims made in the given statements. Though it is common knowledge that USA and Russia have made tremendous technological growth in the 1960's, but if it was a direct outcome of their space programs is not proven. The author provides no data as to what economic and humanitarian benefits were a direct result of the space programs. It could be that both events were completely independent of each other.
Second, the author should provide a cost benefit analysis comparing the huge amounts of money spent on space programs with the value of benefits that he claims to be an outcome of these missions. He should clearly state what research was undertaken in each of these programs and how it benefited mankind. The author should also take into account the time and effort spent on the space programs. He must consider the fact that many space missions failed before the two countries were successful in putting man into space. The cost of failure should also be accounted.
Third, the author assumes that many technological advancements shall result if a manned Mars mission is successful. This assumption is much skewed and the author does not carry a holistic approach. We need to realise the need of the situation, the needs of humanity at this point. The author should provide an explanation as to what problems will a manned mission to Mars help solve. Though there are several issues with the authors reasoning at present, but with research and clarifications the argument can be improved significantly.
In sum, the author must restructure the argument, fix flaws in logic, explain the assumptions and provide evidence. Without the steps mentioned above, the argument will likely convince a few people.
