Central Ideas and Reasoning
Alarcón uses more Pathos (appeal to emotion/adventure/human spirit) and Ethos (human capability), while Caffall uses more Logos (statistics/cost/danger) and Pathos (fear of death/loss).
Helium-3
Caffall writes about the "gaping chasm" between the technology we have and what is needed for deep space. What is the vocabulary term that means "a deep, open gap" (like a crack in the earth)?
Chasm
In "Let Robots Take to the Stars," Caffall uses an extreme example of bad leadership when asking if you'd trust a scientific mission to people who run what kind of television show?
Reality TV
True or False: Both authors agree that risks should be the primary factor in deciding the future of space exploration.
True. (They both agree risk is primary, they just disagree on which kind of risk—financial or physical—is most important.)
What is the term for the author's main point or position they are trying to prove in an argument?
The Claim (or Central Idea/Thesis).
What is the central claim of "Let Robots Take to the Stars"?
Robots should be used for space exploration instead of humans due to the high financial and physical risks.
Which rhetorical device is used in this phrase from Caffall’s essay: “a planet already plagued by pollution”?
Loaded Language
The rhetorical question, "Would you want to trust a scientific mission to the people who run reality TV?" suggests a tone of what?
Ridiculous (or skeptical, contemptuous, incredulous).
Name one thing that both authors would agree is a key factor to consider in the debate over space exploration.
Risk, cost, or scientific progress.
A strong argument must acknowledge the opposition. What is the term for a point the author raises to recognize an opponent’s argument?
A Counterclaim (or Counterargument).
What is the strongest supporting reason Claudia Alarcón gives for why humans are essential for space exploration?
Human explorers are capable of complex, on-the-spot decisions and creative repairs that pre-programmed robots cannot replicate.
Eiren Caffall uses rhetorical questions like, “Is it worth the enormous cost of human life?” What is the main purpose of this device in her argument?
To challenge the reader to think critically about the ethical and moral cost of risking human lives in space.
Of the following words from Alarcón's essay—impossible, problematic, risky, difficult—which one carries the most negative connotation in the context of the essay?
Risky (as it implies a high chance of danger or failure).
The two authors agree that space exploration involves risk, but they disagree on which type of risk is most significant or justifiable. What are the two types of risk at the center of their debate?
Physical risk/risk to human life (Alarcón argues this is justifiable) vs. Financial risk/cost (Caffall argues this is too high).
What is the difference between a piece of Evidence and a piece of Reasoning in an argumentative essay?
Evidence is a fact, statistic, or example that supports the claim. Reasoning is the explanation of how that evidence proves the claim (the logical bridge).
Provide one example of a material benefit of space exploration that Alarcón offers to support her claim that it should continue.
Mining in space could be a source of useful materials (or) The discovery of Helium-3 for nuclear fusion.
In Alarcón's essay, what is the counterargument she addresses regarding the use of robots, and how does she refute it?
Counterargument: Robots are better/safer. Refutation: Robots lack the adaptability, creativity, and judgment to handle unforeseen situations.
What is the overarching purpose of both of these paired passages?
To persuade the reader to adopt a specific stance on the use of humans versus robots in space exploration (argumentative writing).
Identify the primary genre of both of these selections.
Argumentative Essays (or Persuasive Essays).
Both authors use a mix of evidence (facts) and appeals (like Pathos). What is the term for the appeal to the author's credibility, experience, or trustworthiness?
Ethos
According to Eiren Caffall, what is the primary financial argument against human space exploration?
The enormous cost of human missions could be better spent on issues here on Earth.
The authors of both essays use Logos (appeal to logic/reason). Give one piece of evidence from each text that represents an appeal to Logos.
Alarcón: Mentions specific scientific facts like Helium-3 or the necessity of gathering specific materials. Caffall: Mentions the specific enormous cost of human space travel or the risk of death.
Describe the tone of Claudia Alarcón's essay, "Humans Need to Explore Outer Space."
Optimistic, enthusiastic, determined, and bold.
How do the authors' chosen forms of rhetorical appeal differ? (e.g., Alarcón relies more on Pathos and Ethos, while Caffall relies more on Logos and Pathos.)
Alarcón uses more Pathos (appeal to emotion/adventure/human spirit) and Ethos (human capability), while Caffall uses more Logos (statistics/cost/danger) and Pathos (fear of death/loss).