Untitled Document

3. Some people think governments should spend as much money as possible exploring outer space (for example, traveling to the Moon and to other planets). Other people disagree and think governments should spend this money for our basic needs on Earth. Which of these two opinions do you agree with? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

General criteria for this essay:

To score a "6," an essay will have a well organized argument supported by specific reasons and examples to show which position the writer agrees with. The argument should be logical and plausible and cause the reader to reconsider his point of view if he is in disagreement or cause the reader to further bolster his position if he is in agreement. The writer may acknowledge the opposing position, but he will refute it with well chosen examples and apt reasons. The essay will have a high level of polish but may have minor errors in writing, consistent with timed, first draft prose.

Since the start of the race to be first in space, the United States government has spent trillions of dollars on exploring space. In my opinion, this has been at times a waste of money. In the U.S. there are millions of children homeless and millions of others in poverty. It is ludicrous that the U.S. government would spend trillions on exploring space while so many are suffering here on earth. There are many more pressing issues that could be dealt with or eradicated with that money.

According to the people who support spending money for exploring outer space, this exploration will be beneficial for the human race. Those people believe that the possible discovery of new food resources in outer space might solve the problem of food supply, for the earth's ever expanding population. And those people believe that the possible discovery of habitable planets in outer space might solve the problem of global warming and the green house effect, which could ultimately make it necessary to leave the planet earth. However, I do not agree with spending trillions of dollars for possibilities that nobody can guarantee. Think about it, there is no guarantee that through space exploration, new food resources will be discovered and that habitable planets will be found. We should be thinking about all the problems happening on the earth right now. This money would be better spent on teachers and education. While the government funds are used for an expedition to Mars, in Riverside County there are thousands of homeless. While the government funds space exploration, there is a shortage of teachers across the country. The money spent could be used to recruit teachers and to raise teacher salaries. Educating the populace is more important than trying to find life beyond earth.

Why concern ourselves with life beyond earth? If there is life beyond earth, will it come to destroy us? We should be concerned with life on earth and be concerned with what is destroying it here and now.

3. Comments on how this essay meets ETS criteria for a "6:"

This essay demonstrates clear competence in writing on both the rhetorical and syntactic levels

•Clearly taking a position against spending money on space exploration, the writer presents the argument very logically. The issue is well defined, the position is clearly stated, the opposing argument is addressed and refuted, and additional reasons are given to support the writer's own point of view. That the writer has addressed the opposition indicates that he has considered those in the audience who will disagree with his ideas, indicating he has carefully thought about the pros and cons of the topic.

•To define the issue, the writer claims that the U.S. has spent trillions of dollars on space exploration while there are more important problems on earth such as poverty. The writer clearly states his argument by saying that space exploration money is being wasted and should be spent on other issues. In the first part of the second paragraph, the writer addresses and refutes the opposing argument stating "there is no guarantee that through space exploration, new food resources will be discovered and that habitable planets will be found." The writer argues that money should be used to solve immediate problems happening on the earth (i.e., paying teachers and allocating money for education). Aware of how to use questions to keep readers framed around the important aspects of his argument, the writer concludes the essay with two powerful rhetorical questions, thus forcing the reader again to be persuaded to his point of view.

•Paragraph two has some specific details to defend the thesis. For example, the writer claims that government funds are being used for an expedition to Mars, but in Riverside County there are thousands of homeless. The writer also says that there is a shortage of teachers across the country, and space exploration money could be used instead to recruit teachers and to raise teacher salaries. The use of these two examples present a strong case for the writer's position.

•The writer uses a variety of sentence structures including adverb clauses (i.e, since the start of the race to be first in space...), noun clauses (i.e., those people believe that the possible discovery of new food resources in outer space might solve the problem of food supply...) , and adjective clauses (i.e., the possible discovery of habitable planets in outer space might solve the problem of global warming and the green house effect, which could ultimately make it necessary to leave the planet earth). That the writer consistently uses gerund phrases (i.e., I do not agree with spending trillions of dollars for possibilities that nobody can guarantee) and transitional words (i.e., and, while, however...) without any structural problems indicates he has a command of the English language.

•The writer has a superior command of vocabulary (i.e., ludicrous, pressing, eradicated, populace, and habitable...) to demonstrate appropriate word choice.