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, resources should be invested in unmanned space flight.
In his letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine, the author suggests that resources should be invested in unmanned space flight. The author has come to this conclusion based on the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites which demonstrated a great deal of useful information without the costs and risks associated with manned space flight. The argument, as it stands now, is based on two unwarranted assumptions which need to be properly substantiated in order to evaluate the argument.
Firstly, the author presumes that the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellite was strictly because it was an unmanned space flight, and that unmanned space flight will always be successful as experienced recently. However, this may not be the case. It is possible that the success of unmanned space flight was novel as such had never happened in the past. There is also a possibility that the unmanned space success was a mere coincidence which happens once in a blue moon. If any of the above scenarios was the case, the argument of the author is significantly weakened.
In addition, the author assumes that manned spaceflight, despite the risks and costs associated with it cannot give much more successful results that the unmanned spaceflight. However, this may not be the case. It is possible that if manned space flight had been employed recently in place of the unmanned space flight, more interesting and outstanding success would have been obtained, which would greatly compensate for the risks and costs involved. The described scenario greatly renders the argument of the author weak.
In conclusion, the argument in the prompt lacks profundity as it is based on some unfounded assumptions described above. The author needs to provide provide answers and additional evidence to the above concerns in order to evaluate if, indeed, resources should be invested in unmanned space flight and not manned space flight.
| 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 |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 323 350
No. of Characters: 1626 1500
No. of Different Words: 138 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.239 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.034 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.684 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.071 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.478 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.397 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.558 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 442, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... stands now, is based on two unwarranted assumptions which need to be properly su...
^^
Line 3, column 510, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...h happens once in a blue moon. If any of the above scenarios was the case, the ar...
^^
Line 5, column 525, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...enders the argument of the author weak. In conclusion, the argument in the promp...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 43, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lacks'' or 'lack's'?
Suggestion: lacks'; lack's
... conclusion, the argument in the prompt lacks profundity as it is based on some unfou...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 142, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: provide
...ns described above. The author needs to provide provide answers and additional evidence to the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1667.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 323.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16099071207 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74569544311 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 204.123752495 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.445820433437 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 516.6 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.5552064145 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.071428571 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0714285714 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.44657782404 0.218282227539 205% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.150963737687 0.0743258471296 203% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.16316868193 0.0701772020484 233% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.286643720024 0.128457276422 223% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102085286538 0.0628817314937 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.