Please Score my AWA. I will score and review yours in return.
[#permalink]
29 Dec 2016, 13:33
Please score my AWA, copied and pasted below. For anyone who scores this I will happily score and review yours in return.
I wrote this during a practice test, in the 30min time limit, no help from spell check or anything.
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 main argument presented is that the government should pay for a manned mission to Mars, as it would have economic and humanitarian benefits. While the argument seems sound on the surface, it relies heavily on the basic logic that since a previous space project provided benefits then another space project would also provide benefits. This logic does not actually hold up under scrutiny for several reasons, and additionally the supporting evidence is not actually evidence, it is really just statements made by the author that are not supported with verifiable facts.
The most basic tenet of the argument presented is that another space project would have the same benefits as a previous space project. This is a logical fallacy. An example counterargument to this logic would be that a new space project would surely rely heavily on the research, technologies, and experiences of the first. Since much of the research has already been done and we would simply be refining those technologies, the available benefits would be the same as those we already have and developments, while significant to a space mission, would have small impacts on daily life and provide little to no change in economic and humanitarian benefits. This counterargument is presented to illustrate that there are several ways to view the potential effects of a new space mission and that the argument presented is just that, an argument, not a fact.
The argument present also seems to rely heavily on evidence given in the first two and a half sentences. The "evidence" presented is that the Space Race "yielded a tremendous number of technological advances", that these advances "provided many economic and humanitarian benefits", and that "the benefits have more than paid for the effort and money spent during the first Space Race". These three pieces of "evidence" are not actually evidence to support the argument, but instead conclusions that the author has presented to the reader without supporting them with facts. Each piece of "evidence" could be countered by providing an opposing point of view, for example that a tremendous number of technological advances would have occurred regardless, as the people who created them were living and working regardless of the specific project. When it is possible to make this sort of counter-argument it is clear that what is being presented is not a fact, but really a thought or conclusion.
This argument would also be made much stronger by presenting facts and evidence to detail how many and what technological advances could be expected, their expected costs, and most importantly, their expected benefits outside of the space mission. These pieces of evidence would be valuable to evaluating the argument's claim that the benefits would again outweigh the costs associated with funding a mission to Mars. To further support the argument, and to help give context to the costs and benefits of a new mission, it would also be prudent to supply detailed examples of advances made, their costs, and their economic and humanitarian benefits, during the Space Race. These additional pieces of information would help the reader come to a logical and sound conclusion regarding the viability and benefits of a new mission to Mars.
The argument as presented has several flaws, most notably that the argument being made is not supported by the evidence it gives. The argument should both be re-written to avoid the fallacy that a new mission would have the same effects as a past mission, and should be written to include a significant amount of missing information. What has been presented is a vague and ineffective argument. It may well be true that a new mission to Mars would provide benefits to the public, but without supporting that argument with verifiable facts and evidence on potential outcomes, it is difficult for the reader to follow the reasoning presented and agree.