Question

staying grounded
1 during the nineteenth century, many americans believed in manifest destiny. this phrase refers to the idea that the united states was certain to expand its territory to the pacific ocean and beyond. while a popular and patriotic notion for many, others saw the idea of manifest destiny as an aggressive and arrogant mission that put people in harms way. today, the same concept of entitled expansion can be seen in the enthusiasm surrounding sending humans to mars. while the image of deep space travel and settlement on a whole new planet is certainly romantic, it is far from practical, or even humane. the dangers of this overly ambitious voyage are so grave that getting to mars and attempting to settle it are not worth the
the second paragraph is meant to support the authors main claim that we should not send humans to mars because the costs and risks are too great. whats wrong with the authors argument in the second paragraph?
the success of the international space station shows that astronauts can cope with rough conditions.
the author does not explain why astronauts would not be able to prepare for cramped conditions on earth.
experiences on the international space station are not relevant for astronauts going to mars.
the author does not give any evidence that conditions on a rocket to mars would be cramped.

Explanation:

The author compares Manifest Destiny (territorial expansion on Earth) to sending humans to Mars. But the International Space Station (ISS) is a different context. The ISS is in low - Earth orbit, while Mars is a long - distance, different - environment mission. Just because astronauts can handle ISS conditions (which are somewhat different from a Mars mission in terms of duration, radiation exposure, etc.) doesn't mean the ISS experience is directly relevant to a Mars mission. The author's argument in the second paragraph is that we shouldn't send humans to Mars due to high costs and risks. However, if we consider the options:

• Option 1: The success of the ISS shows astronauts can cope with rough conditions. But the ISS conditions are not the same as a Mars mission.
• Option 2: The author not explaining preparation for cramped conditions on Earth is not the main flaw. The main issue is the relevance of the comparison.
• Option 3: Experiences on the ISS are not relevant for astronauts going to Mars. This is correct because the ISS is a low - Earth orbit station, and a Mars mission has different challenges like long - term isolation, different radiation levels, and a much longer journey.
• Option 4: The author not giving evidence of cramped conditions on a Mars rocket is a minor point compared to the irrelevance of the ISS example.

Answer:

Experiences on the International Space Station are not relevant for astronauts going to Mars.