Sample ZZ:
Humans seem to have always been explorers, whether it was the ancient people crossing the land bridge
to the Americas or Vikings sailing across the Atlantic or Lewis and Clark heading west. Some of these
explorations have involved great discoveries that have helped mankind. Some of them have had very
negative effects, and have led to lost fortunes, to war, and even genocide. Space is, as the saying goes,
the final frontier. Exploring it can have both positive and negative effects, so one must think about the
consequences carefully. When making decisions about space exploration, one should consider not just
the immediate costs and risks of such endeavors, but also the long term rewards of the spin-off
technologies produced in order to make space exploration possible.
It would be impractical not to consider the monetary cost of space exploration. It is obviously expensive
to build, test, and send shuttles into space. Some people, such as Professor Russell Roberts, argue that we
should not be using “taxpayer money to get it done” (Source H). It is true that NASA is largely funded
by tax dollars, and so it might be alarming to see statistics stating that “$17 billion” went to NASA in
2006, and that “$5.3 billion” of that was “dedicated to space exploration” (Source E). However, one
needs to keep these statistics in perspective when considering if space exploration is worth it. The United
States collects an enormous amount of money in taxes each year. The charts in Source C reveal that only
a small fraction of each tax dollar goes to space exploration. According to Source C’s information $0.06
of each dollar goes to an “all others” category that includes “space and technology,” but that same
category also includes at least ten other agencies or recipients, including “administration of justice” and
“agriculture.” In reality, less than one cent per dollar goes to the space program. When considering the
funding issues, it is also important to note, as David Livingston does, that the “money spent on manned
space exploration is spent right here on Earth and most of it is spent in the US” (Source A). It is not as if
NASA puts that 5.3 billion dollars into a suitcase on the space shuttle and sends it into space, as Russell
seems to imagine when he argues that we should “Leave the money here on earth” (Source H). So while
it is important to note the costs involved with funding space exploration, cost alone is not necessarily
prohibitive, and one should note the way in which funding space exploration can also help boost the
economy.
Beyond the financial costs, one should also contemplate other kinds of costs. Space exploration does not
come without risks, both to the people going into space, and to space itself. Sending people into space is
dangerous, and there have been terrible tragedies, like the explosion of the Challenger shuttle. But there
is also the reverse danger to consider. We should ask ourselves how humans can pose a threat to space
itself. Greenberg and Tufts mention this issue when they discuss “forward contamination” (Source F).
And while the idea that humans might spread diseases to extraterrestrial life forms might be laughable to
some, it is also true that we are leaving an alarming amount of space trash behind us in the form of old
satellites, shuttle parts, etc. Some of these things fall back to earth and can be destructive, but many of
them remain floating in space indefinitely, and also pose a hazard to even our own space shuttles and
unmanned vehicles. We really ought to consider what we are leaving behind when we explore space, as
Margaret R. McLean warns in her discussion of ethics and stewardship of space (Source E). After all, as
she points out, “we do not have a very good track record in protecting our planet home” (Source E).
However, these financial concerns and worries over safety must be weighed against the less obvious
benefits of space exploration. Sending people into space is a monumental task, and to do it, our scientists
have been forced to come up with inventions they might never have thought of before. Although some
people like Prof. Roberts dismiss the value of “spin-off technologies” (Source H), one really should
consider their role. Because of the needs of astronauts, we now have hundreds of things we take for
granted today. For example, flame retardant fabrics like the ones used in children’s pajamas were
invented for astronauts. And pacemaker technology was also developed because of space research. One
of the reasons people tried to make smaller computers was so that they could fit into the limited space on
the shuttles. In fact, all kinds of advancements in robotics are inspired by the need for unmanned space
exploration. And space exploration also makes all kinds of other research possible, including bone
density research and treatment. The continual challenge of sending astronauts or unmanned crafts further
into space as well as maintaining space stations means that scientists will continue to be pushed to create
new technologies that will have other applications. These other applications might save lives or at least
improve our standards of living back here on earth.
Making decisions about space exploration is a complex business. There are so many factors to consider.
And while it might be tempting to get caught up in idealized visions of how space exploration can bring
us all together, or as some argue, “provide hope and inspiration” for young people (Source A), there are
more practical realities to consider. One must consider funding issues and the risks involved, but one
must also consider the various kinds of returns on the space exploration investment. The spin-off
technologies invented as a result of the space program really have changed the world for the better, and
are worth contemplating as we weigh the pros and cons of the space program.
Score: 9
This essay answers the prompt, and does an excellent job truly synthesizing sources. Paragraph two is a
good example of how this writer plays different sources against each other in a sophisticated manner. The
outside knowledge that is brought in for paragraph four is helpful because it is specific and accurate.
Evidence throughout is well-integrated and usually well-analyzed. Some spots could be more developed,
but overall the writing is insightful. The writer’s control of prose is quite impressive, and helps to raise
the score. The organization is also a high point, as the transitions and topic sentences do a good job
guiding the reader through the argument. The introduction is not particularly impressive, but it does not
detract much from the overall essay. This is a strong, well-written argument that addresses
counterarguments and offers some fresh insight.
Sample O:
Who can forget Kennedy’s rousing speech in which he said we choose to go to the moon not because it is
easy, but because it is hard? That speech made Americans dream, and they managed to achieve that
dream. We beat the Russians to the moon, and it was a great source of pride. In the 1960s, space
exploration seemed like a good idea, no matter what the cost. However, times have changed. Now in
2009, one has to admit that the space program has become too costly to continue, especially when the US
has so many more pressing concerns.
With the economy in such bad shape, we must consider the financial costs of the space program. In 2006
alone, the US spent $17 billion dollars on NASA’s programs (Source E). That is money that could have
been spent in more useful ways. With so many people out of work now, some of that money could have
been used to support Income Security, which according to the Tax Foundation is only getting $0.14 of
every taxpayer dollar (Source C). Or some of it could have been given to help support social services,
which at the moment receive less than $0.04 of every dollar (Source C). Even people such as Professor
Roberts who are enthusiastic about space agree that extravagant plans like Bush’s idea of putting
Americans on Mars seem like a waste of taxpayer money (Source H).
If space is really worth exploring because it can bring us hope and unity as Source A claims, perhaps
there is an alternative to using tax dollars to do it. Maybe we should privatize space exploration. It is
possible that putting the space program in private hands might help us “begin thinking of solutions to
[our] problems which benefit the entire globe, not simply [our] own national interests” (Source G). That
would also free up the billions we now spend on space exploration to help fund more practical interests
like medical research. Source D demonstrates how much even a little money can do to better people’s
lives. Just imagine what the billions of dollars now going to NASA could do in the hands of the NIH.
It is true that the American public may look at pictures like the one in Source B and get inspired or
nostalgic. Like the man in Source H, one might even be moved to tears by Imax space movies. However,
today we do not have the luxury of dreaming impractical dreams. We need to make difficult choices
about how to help the most people in America, and that is not by sending a few people into space so that
we can feel hope. What our country needs now is some practical help getting people jobs and helping
through these tough economic times. Maybe someday when the economy is in better shape we can return
to the luxury of space exploration, but not yet.
Score: 3
This essay is using the wrong approach as it seems to be answering a “what are the most important
issues” prompt with a “pro/con” response. Even the most generous reader would have to say if it is
addressing the question, it only offers one consideration, not multiple ones. Therefore, this essay will not
pass. It is still on topic enough to score above a 2, but not much higher than that, as it also has trouble
with some of its evidence. For example, there is a lot of slanting going on in paragraph two, where the
writer conveniently leaves out some important information that affects the way a reader will look at the
statistics. Also, in the next paragraph, the integration of source G is problematic, as the lead-in to the
quotation seems to suggest G is talking about privatization, when actually this is the writer’s argument.
There are some moments where this essay makes some good points and would be rewarded for them if
this were a pro/con type prompt (if it were, this essay would be a 5). As it is, this essay scored a 3.
Please be careful to identify which type of synthesis prompt you have, and make sure you respond
appropriately.