Brandon Gillette
Argument Analysis Example
Article: “To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars” by Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Ph.D., and Paul Davies, Ph.D., Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html (All quotations are from this article unless otherwise indicated.)
In the above cited article, Doctors Schulze-Makuch and Davies advocate a one-way human mission to mars—a mission where no return trip is planned for the astronauts who land on Mars. The main argument can be isolated from their concluding paragraph:
“Self-preservation considerations in a dangerous universe and the human exploratory spirit compel us to explore space and colonize other planets. Mars is the planet in our solar system, which is reasonably close and provides an abundance of resources and shelter for such a colonization effort. Nevertheless, the first step for the colonization of Mars will be the most difficult. Here, we propose that the most pragmatic approach to achieve this goal is by establishing a small permanent robotic base followed by a series of one-way missions to Mars. The advantages of a one-way human mission are many-fold including a dramatic reduction of costs, the long-term commitment by the space agency, the public, and the crew, and that no rehabilitation program is needed for crew members when remaining on the low-gravity surface of Mars. The challenges are still monumental, though, foremost because political and financial long-term commitments have to be secured.”
Some condensation of the language of this paragraph is heIpful in stating a clear main argument. In standard form, the main argument appears as follows:
P1: We must colonize other planets.
P2: Mars is the most reasonable colonization target.
P3: The most pragmatic approach to colonizing Mars is the one-way mission approach.
P4: (Unstated) When one is compelled to do something, one should select the most pragmatic approach.
C: We must adopt the one-way mission approach to colonizing Mars.
Intuitively, the argument appears valid. If it is the case that we must colonize, and that the most reasonable colonization target is Mars, then it follows that we must colonize Mars if we colonize anywhere. Further, if the most pragmatic way to colonize Mars is the one-way mission approach, and one ought to do that which is pragmatic when one must take an action, then if follows that we must sent one-way colonizations missions to Mars. If all of the premises are true, it does not appear that the conclusion could be anything other than true.
The authors support their premises reasonably well, given that the paper is not particularly long. Support for the first premise is in the form of two considerations alluded to in the concluding paragraph, reproduced above. The authors use the assuring terms “Self-preservation considerations” and “exploratory spirit” to support the claim that we must colonize other planets. These are assuring terms because at this point they refer to there being other reasons and considerations without going into detail concerning them. These reasons are spelled out in greater detail in two paragraphs of section one, the first of which begins with the sentence, “There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony.”
The second premise contains the evaluative term “reasonable”. The authors supply the following criteria for what makes something a reasonable target for colonization: proximity, shelter, and resources. The truth of the second premise is supported by data concerning Mars’s proximity to earth, the amount of shelter it affords to colonists, and the amount and diversity of resources (chemicals and raw materials, mostly) available on Mars with which a colony might sustain itself. The authors point out that the moon is closer, but contains less shelter and resources, and while asteroids are resource rich, they lack shelter and are (mostly) even further away than Mars. It is not that Mars is the only reasonable colonization target, but rather that it is the most reasonable. This is a legitimately guarded phrase because it still makes a substantive claim while not stating more than there is evidence to support.
Another crucial evaluative term in the argument is the term ‘pragmatic’ in the third premise, which means practical. The criteria that the authors seem to have in mind (and discuss at some length) for what makes something pragmatic in this context is that it allows accomplishment of the goal (colonization of Mars) in the most cost-effective and technically feasible way. The authors support this point mainly in section 2 of their paper, demonstrating in sufficient detail the kind of cost savings that forgoing a return voyage would yield. Premise 4 requires little support. People do not select unnecessarily impractical solutions, all things being equal.
An important discounting phrase bookends the beginning and ending of the article. The first sentence in the article is, “A human mission to Mars is technologically feasible, but hugely expensive requiring enormous financial and political commitments.” The final two sentences are, “The advantages of a one-way human mission are many-fold including a dramatic reduction of costs, the long-term commitment by the space agency, the public, and the crew, and that no rehabilitation program is needed for crew members when remaining on the low-gravity surface of Mars. The challenges are still monumental, though, foremost because political and financial long-term commitments have to be secured.” These discounting phrases each assert one good thing about a one-way mission approach to colonizing Mars, namely that it is technologically feasible and advantageous over other approaches to colonization. Both discounting phrases assert that colonization requires significant political and financial commitment, and imply that this is the more important of the two facts.
These discounting terms serve several purposes. The main rhetorical purpose is to imply, in a compact way, that the reason that we aren’t already colonizing Mars is not because we can’t do it or can’t afford it, but because our governments (wrongly) don’t want to do it. If the main obstacle to colonizing Mars is not its feasibility or cost, but instead political willingness, then the authors’ proposal has another advantage. It ensures long-term political commitment once started. It is unlikely that any government would send living human beings to Mars whose mission is to start and sustain a colony and then later cut the program, leaving the astronaut/colonists (who would likely have ultra-celebrity status for being on such a mission) to starve to death in a very public way.
Overall, this is an effectively expressed argument that is valid and provides adequate support for its premises. Since arguments are good when they are valid and sound, this is a good argument. Further, its stylistic features enhance, rather than distract from the main point that the authors seek to express.
Word Count (excluding citation and block quote): 944 words