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 aforementioned argument in a science magazine describes the Space Race of the 1960's between USA and Russia and applauds the cause for its contributions in terms of various economic and humanitarian benefits. Huge sums of money were invested in the mission and the government more than broke even towards the end. Hence, the argument comes to a seemingly valid conclusion that such overwhelming results of the Space Race suggest that the government must make large allowances in the upcoming manned Mars landing by 2020. Though the argument comes across as well reasoned, one might accuse the argument of some underlying assumptions which are quite questionable in nature and may not hold true more often than not. Besides, the arguments lacks some crucial additional information and hence, loses out on the potential backing of some valuable evidence.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the competition from the opponent government in the 1960's had no influence in how the various events panned out. Could it be possible that the only reason that the government made such strides on the technological front was the constant pressure exerted by its rival? The argument could have collected some reports or statements made by the experts involved in the mission of the 1960's to analyze the reasons behind the success of the mission from the experts' perspective. In fact, it could be possible that similar competition exists even with the 2020 Mars mission, but the argument fails to provide any information regarding the same.
Secondly, a lot of things have changed around the world and many new superpowers have risen over the years. The argument would be wrong to assume that the changed factors do not have any sizable influence on the success of the Mars mission. For example, the economy of the world is on a rise, many space organizations in more of the developing countries have achieved great landmarks and so on. Hence, the competition in 2020, the cost of the mission, and many more factors could be terribly inflated as compared to the Space Wars of the 1960's. The argument could have helped the reader with information about such factors, and how the factors changed over the time.
Moreover, it would be very helpful to know the exact differences between the two missions in terms of the aims and objectives of each, the financial condition of the government during both the missions and more importantly data regarding the progress made by other countries on the field. Therefore, in conclusion, the lack of valid evidence in the argument prevents it from completely well reasoned and acceptable. It was always necessary to back the assumptions with some sound data.
Thanks in advance
