The argument provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine states that the scientific community should have to invest resources in unmanned space flight. It fails to maintain several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To satisfy the conclusion the authors' reason is that some recent unmanned spacecraft demonstrate the best result with lower cost and risk than a manned spacecraft. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little justification to the arguers' salutatory conclusion. So, the argument is considered incomplete.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that manned space flight is costly and dangerous. This is merely and the assumption is made without solid ground. There can be a possibility that manned space flight is a little bit expensive than an unmanned one and which can be easily maintained by getting more useful information. There is also a possibility that the manned space flight is not much danger in this scientific era. However, the argument would have been better if it provides information about the cost difference and the dangers associated with a manned space flight than an unmanned one.
Second, the statement states that some recent unmanned space probes and satellites are doing a pretty good job than an unmanned one with minimal cost and risk. This again is a weak analogy present by an author to corroborate the conclusion. It does not demonstrate a clear correlation between the unmanned space flight with the reliability of the data presented by these techniques. It fails to explain the generalizing capacity of the unmanned space flight. It also fails to give a comparative chart of the reliability index of manned and unmanned spaceflight's data in a scientific community. However, the argument would have been better if it provides an example of some succeeds unmanned space flight with a rating of the reliability.
Moreover, the arguer overall justification is not acceptable from any aspect and raises some skeptical questions. For example, is unmanned space flight have a good analyzing brain than a man? The useful data acquired by the manned spacecraft is less important than the money investment? What is the acceptance rate of the data acquired by unmanned space flight in the scientific community? With out convincing th
The
argument
provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine states that the
scientific
community should
have to
invest resources in unmanned
space
flight
. It fails to maintain several key factors on the basis of which it could
be evaluated
. To satisfy the conclusion the authors' reason is that
some
recent unmanned spacecraft demonstrate the best result with lower cost and
risk
than a
manned
spacecraft.
However
, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides
little
justification to the arguers' salutatory conclusion.
So
, the
argument
is considered
incomplete.
First of all
, the
argument
readily
assumes that
manned
space
flight
is costly and
dangerous
. This is
merely
and the assumption
is made
without solid ground. There can be a possibility that
manned
space
flight
is a
little bit
expensive
than an unmanned one and which can be
easily
maintained by getting more useful information. There is
also
a possibility that the
manned
space
flight
is not much
danger
in this
scientific
era.
However
, the
argument
would have been better if it provides information about the cost difference and the
dangers
associated with a
manned
space
flight
than an unmanned one.
Second, the statement states that
some
recent unmanned
space
probes and satellites are doing a pretty
good
job than an unmanned one with minimal cost and
risk
. This again is a weak analogy present by an author to corroborate the conclusion. It does not demonstrate a
clear
correlation between the unmanned
space
flight
with the reliability of the
data
presented by these techniques. It fails to
explain
the generalizing capacity of the unmanned
space
flight
.
It
also
fails to give a comparative chart of the reliability index of
manned
and unmanned spaceflight's
data
in a
scientific
community.
However
, the
argument
would have been better if it provides an example of
some
succeeds unmanned
space
flight
with a rating of the reliability.
Moreover
, the arguer
overall
justification is not acceptable from any aspect and raises
some
skeptical questions.
For example
,
is unmanned
space
flight
have a
good
analyzing brain than a
man
? The useful
data
acquired by the
manned
spacecraft is less
important
than the money investment? What is the acceptance rate of the
data
acquired by unmanned
space
flight
in the
scientific
community?
With out
convincing
th