The “Space Race” of the 1960’s between the USA and Russia was very exp

Hey Everyone, First post. I'm looking for some help with this essay, let me know what you think.

Thanks in advance.

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 claims that the "Space Race" between the Unites States and Russia generated tremendous technological advances which have more than paid for the spending. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the space race is the only reason for a large number of the economic and humanitarian advancements during the time period. This statement is a stretch as it fails to account for the fact that the Cold War was also occurring at the same time, during which the United States was competing with Russia in every aspect. For example, the United States was working on designing superior military technology than the Russians, which included nuclear weapons, aircrafts, and other vehicles. Clearly, these advancements, specifically in vehicles and aircrafts have translated over to the private sector and now influence the way that these things are manufactured. This is completely separate from the space race, but it has been neglected. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the Space Race was instrumental in advancements in computer technology, coding, and software rather than the vague blanket statement which was made.
Second, the argument claims that the advancements provided by the space race have provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. This is again a vary weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the supposed advancements and the space race. To illustrate, the author does not provide any any examples of such benefits, leading the reader to believe that the space race is responsible for a majority of them. This argument does not consider the circumstances at the time, during the Cold War, when tensions were high and the people were concerned every day that they may be attacked. The Space Race provided no remedy for this, instead making matters worse by competing with Russia at the time. While it could be argued that the technological advancements that were necessary to send aircrafts to space could have spilled over into the public sector and influenced technological advancements at the time, providing economic growth, this does not address the humanitarian aspect. In fact, it is not at all clear how the space race provided any humanitarian impact. If the argument had cited examples of the humanitarian impact of the space race, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, there is no evidence that the benefits have outweighed the costs. The author does not list the benefits of the space race, they do not inform the readers of the costs of the space race, and they do not inform the readers of the economic gain from the space race. Without convincing answers to some of these concerns, one is left with the impression that the claim is more wishful thinking that substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts regarding the space race, the benefits, and the costs involved. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the author simply says there were benefits, but does not provide on information regarding these vague benefits. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.