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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
In the above argument , the author mentions that , in 1960's , the Space Race between the USA and Russia yielded numerous technological advances . These advances provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. So on the basis of these evidences, the author reaches to a conclusion that the government should make allowance within the budget to pay for manned Mars landing by 2020. However ,at the fist read, the argument seems partially convincing, but on analysing it deeply we will find that it is flawed. It is weakened by certain limitations , such as unwarranted assumptions and unrelated facts .
First, the author assumes that the technological advances , resulting from Space Race, caused economic and humanitarian benefits. However, there is a possibility that some other factors are responsible for the benefits. For instance, better education , better leadership or industries. The author thinks because the two event took place at the same time , one caused the other. So, the author fails to provide enough evidence between the relationship of economic and humanitarian benefits and the Space race .
Second, the author thinks that just because the space race in 1960's gave a lot of benefits , investment in manned Mars landing will yield the same results. The author neglects the fact that the conditions may not be same now as they were in 1960's.For example, there could be numerous complications now. The research and the mission demand a greater share of budget. There is a possibility that the money is required in some other field such as education, generation of jobs or environment. Hence , using resource for the Mars landing will be a waste .
In sum , the author fails to address the above mentioned issues. The author can strengthen the argument if he provides more concrete facts such as , how the space race yielded the benefits, how much money was allocated in 1960's for Space race , how will the manned Mars landing will benefit the society now. Without answering these issue the argument will convince very 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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
In the above argument , the author mentions that , in 1960's , the Space Race between the USA and Russia yielded numerous technological advances . These advances provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. So on the basis of these evidences, the author reaches to a conclusion that the government should make allowance within the budget to pay for manned Mars landing by 2020. However ,at the fist read, the argument seems partially convincing, but on analysing it deeply we will find that it is flawed. It is weakened by certain limitations , such as unwarranted assumptions and unrelated facts .
First, the author assumes that the technological advances , resulting from Space Race, caused economic and humanitarian benefits. However, there is a possibility that some other factors are responsible for the benefits. For instance, better education , better leadership or industries. The author thinks because the two event took place at the same time , one caused the other. So, the author fails to provide enough evidence between the relationship of economic and humanitarian benefits and the Space race .
Second, the author thinks that just because the space race in 1960's gave a lot of benefits , investment in manned Mars landing will yield the same results. The author neglects the fact that the conditions may not be same now as they were in 1960's.For example, there could be numerous complications now. The research and the mission demand a greater share of budget. There is a possibility that the money is required in some other field such as education, generation of jobs or environment. Hence , using resource for the Mars landing will be a waste .
In sum , the author fails to address the above mentioned issues. The author can strengthen the argument if he provides more concrete facts such as , how the space race yielded the benefits, how much money was allocated in 1960's for Space race , how will the manned Mars landing will benefit the society now. Without answering these issue the argument will convince very few people.
