ESSAY QUESTION:
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:
The argument concludes that the expensive "Space Race" yielded a high number of technological advances. It goes on to state that these technological advances have more than paid for the money and energy spent on the Space Race; therefore, the government should make allowances to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020. However, the logic of this argument is faulty for the reasons that are listed below.
First, the argument assumes that new technology is needed to go to Mars. If current technology is already advanced enough to have a Mars landing, then very little advances in technology will occur during an attempt to have a manned Mars landing. If this is the case, the benefits of the technological advances probably will not make up for the money and effort that went into a having a manned Mars landing.
Next, the article assumes that our society will benefit from these new technological advances. Even if the attempt to have a manned landing on Mars creates a number of technological advances, there is no guarantee that these advances will benefit society in any way.
Finally, the argument assumes that the benefits of the technological advances that will come from the Mars mission will more than pay for the effort and money spent during an attempt to have a manned Mars landing. If the mission to go to Mars ends of being very expensive and only a few techonological advances occur because the mission, than the benefits of the technological advances may not be great enough to make up for the effort and money spent going to Mars.
In summary, the argument that the government should financially support a manned Mars mission, due to the fact that the previous "Space Race" yielded a lot of technological advances, is flawed. The argument makes too many assumptions on whether new techonology is needed to go to Mars, and whether our society will benefit from any technological advances that are created.
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:
The argument concludes that the expensive "Space Race" yielded a high number of technological advances. It goes on to state that these technological advances have more than paid for the money and energy spent on the Space Race; therefore, the government should make allowances to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020. However, the logic of this argument is faulty for the reasons that are listed below.
First, the argument assumes that new technology is needed to go to Mars. If current technology is already advanced enough to have a Mars landing, then very little advances in technology will occur during an attempt to have a manned Mars landing. If this is the case, the benefits of the technological advances probably will not make up for the money and effort that went into a having a manned Mars landing.
Next, the article assumes that our society will benefit from these new technological advances. Even if the attempt to have a manned landing on Mars creates a number of technological advances, there is no guarantee that these advances will benefit society in any way.
Finally, the argument assumes that the benefits of the technological advances that will come from the Mars mission will more than pay for the effort and money spent during an attempt to have a manned Mars landing. If the mission to go to Mars ends of being very expensive and only a few techonological advances occur because the mission, than the benefits of the technological advances may not be great enough to make up for the effort and money spent going to Mars.
In summary, the argument that the government should financially support a manned Mars mission, due to the fact that the previous "Space Race" yielded a lot of technological advances, is flawed. The argument makes too many assumptions on whether new techonology is needed to go to Mars, and whether our society will benefit from any technological advances that are created.
