Rate my essay please (I've made some mistakes..)
[#permalink]
28 Jan 2016, 19:21
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 makes a case for a manned Mars landing by 2020 as it would lead to a number of technological advances similar to those achieved during the 'space race'. However, the argument fails to mention it's assumptions and so leaves the argument unsubstantiated.
Firstly, the argument assumes that because the 'Space Race' in the 1960's led to a numerous technological advances, a mission to Mars would do the same. In the 1960's the aerospace industry was nascent and so the sheer amount of discoveries and technological achievements would outstrip the number achieved when the industry has matures. There is no doubt that a manned mission to Mars would lead to technological advances, but would those advances provide economic and humanitarian benefits? By not expanding on the current shortfalls in technology for a Mars mission, the argument fails to highlight the potential benefits in technology would bring about.
Secondly, nowhere does the prompt statement discuss the expected budget for a Mars mission and how it would compare to the budget during the 'Space Race', after adjusting for inflation.
It is possible that the funds required for a mars mission are of a much greater magnitude those required for the space race.
Further, the return on investment of a mars mission might be a fraction of the return of investment during the space race.
To strengthen the argument, the budget for a Mars mission would need to be mentioned and compared to the budget during the space race. Further, the expected benefits would have to be valued and the potential return on investment would have to be considered.
To summarise, the argument has made some broad assumptions and to strengthen it , would need to highlight the current lacunae in technology for a Mars mission and the value of such technologies compared to the required investment.
However, currently as it stands, the argument rather untenable.