Please read my AWA essay? Test in a couple days!

[shruti.merchant]

Question:
"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."

Response:
The science magazine presents the argument that because the effort and money spent during the Space Race resulted in a tremendous number of technological advances, our government should extend the United States current budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020. Although this does present an interesting point, the argument is unsubstantiated and lacks the evidence to show that extending our current budget will result in benefits greater than the cost. There are many different types of evidence the magazine could acquire to bolster the argument, and to make it more logically sound.

Firstly, the author neglects to mention the exact cost of the space race and the theoretical cost of a manned Mars landing. The "Space Race" was very expensive, and it was very possibly the large amounts of money pumped into the development of new technology that resulted in the many economic and humanitarian benefits that arose from the situation. If the sum that it would take to pay for a manned Mars landing is much lower than the sum that was invested in the "Space Race", the comparison is quite useless. It would be much more beneficial to present evidence of a similarly budgeted project.

In addition, the argument also presents the incorrect assumption that if the same amount of money and effort is put into the space program, the amount of growth that will occur will be consistent with the amount of growth that occurred during the "Space Race". Although this might be the case, the "Space Race" occurred during a very unique time in United States History. The goal of the investment in the space program during that time was not to better the human race, but rather to beat Russia in the advancement of space technology. From this passage alone, one cannot infer that the economic and humanitarian benefits arose only from the intrinsic value of the program; it is very likely that part of the benefit arose because we had proved ourselves better than Russia through the use of space technology. Todays world is very different. Instead of presenting the example of the "Space Race", it would be much more beneficial to present an example of how Space technology development in the 21st century in a country similar to the United States benefitted that country. If the benefits hold true for a similar country in todays world, it is likely that the United States similarly investing in Space technology in would result in our country reaping similar benefits.

As shown by the assumptions listed above, the arguments conclusion is flawed and cannot be considered logically sound. With more evidence and facts to back it up, the authors could easily formulate a more convincing argument. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.