Hi! I just found this forum and would absolutely love it if I could get some feedback/ratings for my argument essay. It was completed within the time limit and no further alterations were made. Thank you so much!

"The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine:

“Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight.""

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

Response:

Man's journey into the vast expanse of space has been one of the great wonders of the majority of the last century. Of the many investigations and adventures into the enigmatic cosmos, one of the most widely renown is that of the touchdown on the moon. What if, instead of a prized astronaut stating "one small step for man..." there had been a series of zeros and ones computed by an unmanned drone signalling that it had touched down on the moon? The current paper will analyze the validity of the argument that, because of recent success in the field of unmanned space exploration, resources should be attributed in favor of it over manned flight. Specifically, the arguments assumptions that unmanned space flight will be less costly, comparable funding for space flight will be attained in the event of this commitment, and the representativeness of the statistics for which the argument basis itself. The paper will also discuss the validity of the humanistic counterargument that, because manned space flight is dangerous, unmanned flight is superior.

At the beginning of the proposed argument, there is a clear tone in which the author speaks which assumes that unmanned space flight is not costly in comparison to manned space flight. This statement, while likely made under the basis of factual evidence, is only contextually correct. As the complexity and structure of the unmanned drones increases, the cost increases at an exponential rate. This is because, due to the unmanned nature of the drones, there has to be incredibly precise specificity in the programming and movement of the units. Men and women, while there is considerable investment in their training and the supplies they are afforded with, are not increasing exponentially in price. Evidence from SpaceX and NASA has shown that the ships in which they are residing in during the explorations are also not increasing nearly as dramatically. These two pieces of evidence in tangent with one another make the assumption less powerful.

The linchpin of this argument is in the trust it places in recent success of unmanned satellites and probes. The way in which this is stated shows that there is very clear potential for problems of representativeness. "Recent success of a series..." is vague language that could mean there is a considerable number of drones which were sent out, of which enough succeeded to be considered a representative sample of the whole population of drones which will be sent out. It could also mean, however, that there was a series of three drones sent out, of which all three succeeded. There is no way to know based off of the way the argument is structured, thus using statistics in this way does not prove as a legitimate basis for support.

There is, however, a very real and legitimate humanistic assumption in favor of unmanned drones that is embedded within the argument. That, because there is an honest risk to human life in the field of space flight, using unmanned drones is superior. While this counterargument holds water in respect to humanistic values, a big rationale behind space exploration is to be able to eventually move humans to other places within the universe. Without continually developing and testing the ability for manned space craft to succeed, a fundamental basis behind space exploration is left behind.

Lastly, the argument relies on the assumption that the level of funding would remain the same if the funding was being used more for unmanned drones than manned aircraft. From a marketing standpoint, this simply wouldn't be the case. It is much more difficult to market the idea of a robot, no matter how endearing its name, than a team of unique individuals all of whom share the human experience and have their own stories to tell. A big part of why space exploration has intrinsic value to many people is because of those who are brave enough to train and risk their lives for this cause. While the humanistic argument is very real, it does not have as profound a place in talks of finances.

In summation, the argument relies on multiple critical assumptions that are not supported within itself. The statistical evidence is used incorrectly, as there is a strong chance for problems of representation, the financial assumptions surrounding manned versus unmanned drones are only contextually supported, and lastly there is a critical assumption made that similar levels of funding would be supported under the new focus of difficult to market, unmanned drones. The humanistic undertone which the argument takes has very real connotations, yet it undermines a basic principle under which many of these intelligent, brave men and women spend their entire lives training for. With all of these pieces of evidence in consideration, it is clear that the conclusion derived by the author is not adequately supported.