"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."
The writer of the letter recommends that as Manned space flights are dangerous and expensive, we should rely and invest more on unmanned space flight. To support his recommendation, he asserts that because of many useful information provided by unmanned space flight, as they are much less risky and cheaper compared to manned space flight, it is better to work on space flights that do not have person in it. However, this recommendation cannot be taken to be true as it is in that it rests on concatenation of premises most of which can be challenged in one or another way.
The first problem of the argument is that the data the writer provided may be potentially unrepresentative statistical result because the writer did not provide information about the sample size and the total number of cases he had dealt with regarding to his conclusion about more useful information can be gathered by unmanned space flights that manned one. According to statistical theory, the greater the proportion of the sample to target size, the more reliable and valid the result is. Hence, because the writer did not provide any evidence to regarding sample size and total number of the cases he survied or relied on its result and just assumed that they are OK, what he concluded about this result in not valid or reliable. Additionally, a sample to be a good representative of a target in order to apply the result of the sample to the whole target papulation. For example, there may exist many different useful information that could be clustered in many different categories and because there is no evidence provided by the writer to show the mentioned results by the writer. To improve his argument, he can, for example, mention the proportion of the sample size related to the total number of cases he surveyed, and also, he should prove the sample size was a qualified represantative of the all cases he dealt with.
Even assuming that the sample is both large enough and representative, there exists other flaws in the writer's deduction. For example, maybe there are methodological flaws in the survey the writer based his words on it.
For instance, maybe the "useful information" data are selected with bias and there may exist many relevent information that could be gathered only by manned space that the collector of the data for the survey intentionally igonored them. Therefore, to solve this problem the writer should become assure about the impartiality of the data selection to make the survey he concluded based on it to become valid.
In the final analysis, the writer recommendation cannot be correct as it is based on some premises that are dubious. The recommendation can be accepted only if the problematic issues already reffered are justifiably addressed.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-23 | Krisha Lakhani | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-17 | riyarmy | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-11 | Anish Sapkota | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-04 | DCAD123 | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-30 | BusariMoruf | 55 | view |
- Men and women, because of their inherent physical differences, are not equally suited for many tasks.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to ad 83
- which one do you prefer1. a challenging, interesting job with a few vacation days2. a less challenging job with more vacation days 3
- What would you prefer, to work alone or work with others 90
- The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been pr 72
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Hence, because the writer did not provide any evidence to regarding sample size and total number of the cases he survied or relied on its result and just assumed that they are OK, what he concluded about this result in not valid or reliable.
Error: survied Suggestion: survived
Sentence: Additionally, a sample to be a good representative of a target in order to apply the result of the sample to the whole target papulation.
Error: papulation Suggestion: population
Sentence: To improve his argument, he can, for example, mention the proportion of the sample size related to the total number of cases he surveyed, and also, he should prove the sample size was a qualified represantative of the all cases he dealt with.
Error: represantative Suggestion: representative
Sentence: For instance, maybe the 'useful information' data are selected with bias and there may exist many relevent information that could be gathered only by manned space that the collector of the data for the survey intentionally igonored them.
Error: may Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: igonored Suggestion: ignored
Error: relevent Suggestion: relevant
Sentence: Therefore, to solve this problem the writer should become assure about the impartiality of the data selection to make the survey he concluded based on it to become valid.
Error: impartiality Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: The recommendation can be accepted only if the problematic issues already reffered are justifiably addressed.
Error: reffered Suggestion: No alternate word
----------------------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/following-opinion-was-provided-l…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 466 350
No. of Characters: 2262 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.646 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.854 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.784 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.067 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.047 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.375 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.592 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.193 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[4]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun information seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much useful information', 'a good deal of useful information'.
Suggestion: much useful information; a good deal of useful information
...ommendation, he asserts that because of many useful information provided by unmanned space flight, as t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 903, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...apulation. For example, there may exist many different useful information that could be cluste...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 964, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
... information that could be clustered in many different categories and because there is no evid...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 104, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...tative, there exists other flaws in the writers deduction. For example, maybe there are...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, may, regarding, so, therefore, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2323.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 466.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98497854077 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89888747643 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.420600858369 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 763.2 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 71.2366946641 57.8364921388 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.866666667 119.503703932 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.0666666667 23.324526521 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.93333333333 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1858791252 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693880862482 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0792875641704 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107644595809 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0890997362846 0.0628817314937 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.3550499002 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.2 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.