IS SPACE RESEARCHING WORTH BIGGER INVESTMENT?
In the future, it seems more difficult to live on Earth. Some people think more money should be spent on researching other planets to live, such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is argued that more money should be allocated to the searching of life on other planets in the future due to the predicted degradation of the surface and atmosphere of the Earth. I am strongly opposed to this idea.
First, there is little reason to spend more money on finding a new home for mankind in the universe when the Earth's condition can be improved by many viable solutions. For the water, the establishment of filtering systems will stop the spreading of garbage and toxic chemicals. Take Singapore for example, since the application of such systems in factories, the quality of water of this country has incredibly become cleaner. For the atmosphere, protecting and growing trees in large scales will help reduce air pollution. Likewise, Singaporeans are benefitted with fresh air thanks to the government's campaign to preserve a huge national forest.
Moreover, the possibility of finding evidence of life on other planets still remains a complete uncertainty. So far, numerous attempts by the scientists have failed to identify the existence of oxygen on the closest planet, Mars. The latest project of SpaceX confirms that there is no source of air available on Mars. Therefore, investing in this searching mission is quite impractical at this moment and even in the future.
Lastly, the amount of money required to relocate the entire mankind to another planet would be unimaginable if such a desirable place was discovered. The spaceship which carried only two pilots to Mars in 2012 cost almost 1 billion USD. If a planet with survivability was found, the cost of transporting human would be thousands of times multiplied.
In conclusion, I believe that money should not be spent on researching other planets as the ambition to send human away from Earth is far from reach. Instead, saving the Earth from future degradation is still possible.
The flow and structure of the essay is sufficient. There are, however, a couple of small revisions that I suggest you do.
Your first introductory paragraph is quite lacking. I would suggest adding more details to have a better flow. You can, for instance, introduce why institutions, agencies, or organizations are doing this. Tackle their motive, and then you can briefly discuss why you disagree with it. When you make mention that you are opposed to it, you should give a brief description as to why. You do not need to mention all the points in the essay, however you should tap onto why it is necessary.
On a small note, I also suggest revising the statement line by saying instead:
I strongly oppose this because _______.
This is a more straightforward approach.
Moreover, I also suggest rereading your essay and looking into your usage of preposition and punctuation. There were instances wherein the misuse affected the quality of the essay. In addition, looking into synonyms that could be perfect substitutes to make the text look more put-together can also help.
Let's look at your second paragraph. The first line can be rewritten as:
First, there is little reason to financially invest in finding a new home outside Earth; this money can instead be utilized for finding sustainable solutions.
You should avoid making vague statements. What do you mean by "such systems" that Singapore applied to its factories? How exactly does the national forest preservation work in the country's case? Discussing specifics can add substance to your essay to strengthen it.
The second to the last paragraph has to reviewed as well. Which criteria have you utilized to conclude that it isn't worth it to have 1B USD as a form of investment for the spaceship? If you could provide more quantitative data on it, it would contribute to your essay.
I would also suggest looking into revising your conclusion. Why exactly do you think that these ambitions are out of reach? How negative is the impact of having these ambitions? The more specific and direct you are, the better.
Hi coke
I think your essay is very good, ideal number of words and convincing support ideas.
These are some small mistakes or things I want to change lil bit:
There is little reason advocating why we should spend
For the water => For/ Regarding/ In terms of the water environment
benefitted from/by
@coke
you use too many "the". sometimes it is not necessary because it does not specificly refer to anothy one or anything.