Argument Topic: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

The letter in the national aeronautics magazine opposes the idea of a manned space flight and favors for an unmanned space flight. The argument seems convincing and plausible at the first glance. However, as we dig deep into the matter, the letter seems to be based on various latent and perceptible assumptions which untill proved cannot be considered.

The letter is based on the assumption that manned space flight is not salubrious which seems ill logical. A claim is always accompanied by evidences and valid reasons and not mere assumptions. If manned space flights are costly and dangerous, then the term 'costly' should have been quantified and along with it, compared to the costs of an unmanned one. Also to prove it dangerous, few mishaps or fatal accidents of the past must had been mentioned.

Another assumption which has been accompanied in the argument is that the information gathered by the unmanned satellites is superior to those obtained by manned ones in terms of various aspects. It states that the cost of sending a human in space is saved by an unmanned space flight. However what about the expenditure involved at the manufacturing level? Ain't the unmanned vehicle much more complicated than the manned one? Hence it seems to be a baseless appeal since the required facts are not mentioned in the argument.

The author also assumes that a robot is superior to a man. But while assuming this, he forgets that a man has built the robot and not vice verse. What the former can do, the latter lacks the ability to do so. A man has the ability to spontaneously think, act according to the situation, is independent and has a flexible mind set. On the contrary, a robot not only lacks the above features, but also is suitable only for programmed tasks. In desperate situations, it can’t act on its own and eventually gets destroyed leading to a monetary loss.

Apart from the assumptions, the tone and content of the letter seem suspicious. Albeit the author mentions that the manned vehicle is ‘dangerous’, he doesn't put any stress on that part. The content highlights only on the fact that how efficient the unmanned vehicle is when it comes to information gathering. As a result, the intent of the letter seems to publicize unmanned vehicles rather than be concerned about the manned vehicles.

However, even if the unmanned vehicles are advantageous over the manned ones, it is too early to jump to a conclusion and divert the resources towards the former; the success stories have happened ‘recently’ and not occurring over a prolonged duration of time as it has been happening for the latter. As a result, due to the over stated unproved assumptions, the argument seems to be ill-founded and the authenticity of the letter falls flat due to the insufficiency of the data provided.