Teresa: Manned spaceflight does not have a future, since it cannot

Hello, Sidharth003. I am glad you found an official question I had not seen before, and a challenging one at that. I am attaching a screenshot of my breakdown of the question, with an analysis to follow.


First off, notice that I spent 2:12 before I committed to an answer. I felt good about it in the moment—I could not think of a way to disprove it—so I went with it. Was I worried about going over on time? Not at all. I would much rather figure out a question than arrive at a 50/50 between two answers and then guess which one was better. (In fact, I see this difference in approach as the main factor that separates a student who can achieve a perfect Verbal score from one who struggles to make it beyond 40, with no inherent difference in ability or test-readiness. But I digress...)

The passage could not be much easier to follow. Teresa presents an argument and then backs it up, conveniently with the premise-marker since. She focuses on the economics of manned spaceflight. (You can tell by the language that this is an older passage.)

Edward counters with a premise-conclusion presentation. The argument is introduced by the conclusion-marker thus. But his reasoning, his premise, ties into reliability and safety, not economics.

Our goal is to select an answer that accurately reflects our understanding of the passage, nothing more.

Choice (A) fails because this is not a battle of which evidence is better. In fact, I am not sure I would label the premise Teresa uses as evidence. It seems an extension of her own view, rather than being based on factual information. (You could argue that she would view the information I have underlined in pink as evidence, but we are really splitting hairs now.) In any case, evidence about accidents does not comment on or disprove evidence (or information) about economic viability. This should be an easy elimination.

Choice (B) fails because a logical gap is more like a missing element that allows an argument to follow from a premise. Just because Edward mentions "the 'safety' parameter," as you referred to it above, to justify his argument does not mean that a logical gap exists between the premise-argument framework that Teresa has adopted. She simply focuses on an economic bent while he chooses to focus on a different aspect of manned spaceflight.

Choice (C) fails because it is basically akin to saying that Edward is right, that Teresa overlooked a consideration that led her to make an erroneous conclusion. Sure, in his own eyes, Edward would agree with the idea expressed in (C), but the question stem is asking us to make a logical evaluation of his argument, and we have no insight into whose view is espoused by the passage.

Choice (D) works because we can appreciate that Edward and Teresa go in different directions with their arguments. Furthermore, Edward does, in fact, assume that there is no problem shuttling people to space because he only focuses on the record of reliability of human spaceflight, and he presents that record in a decidedly positive light. Otherwise, we would expect his conclusion to be more cautious: manned spaceflight definitely has a positive future (my italics). Again, this argument is apparently based on nothing more than this stellar (sorry, I could not resist the pun) ability to transport humans to space. All in all, this answer choice looks fully defensible.

Choice (E) fails because, although the first half checks out, the latter part that mentions the national budget is completely off-base. Teresa never mentions the national budget, and she certainly never mentions prioritizing space activities over non-space activities or claims. Look at her part of the dialogue again. She mentions other means of accomplishing the objectives of spaceflight (again, my italics). That sounds space-oriented to me.

In short, only choice (D) matches the passage on both ends of the spectrum. You should not have to bend over backwards to justify could-be-true answers. The correct answer is the one that you have the hardest time arguing against.

I hope that helps address your concerns. Thank you for bringing my attention to the question.

- Andrew