Self-study
Conclusion Building a space station, in which astronauts would live for a considerable time, is essential even if the space station project were to contribute no new knowledge about space or Earth that could not otherwise be obtained. ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██ ████████ █████
Argument Breakdown
The argument concludes that it's essential to build a space station where astronauts can live for an extended time, even if the space station doesn't yield any other new information about Earth or space. So why is this space station so essential? Because the medical knowledge regarding humans' capacity to live in space will be useful for future Mars exploration missions.
Objective: Identify a Necessary Assumption
When looking for a necessary assumption, it's often hard to predict the correct answer. Necessary assumptions can be so subtle that we ourselves take them for granted when reading an argument. For that reason, the most reliable method is often process of elimination. And to identify which answer choices are correct or incorrect, we can use the negation or must be true tests.
11.
The argument makes the assumption ████
a
the exploration of ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ██ ██████ █████
If we negate (A), we get "the exploration of Mars will be carried out by robots alone." That seriously undermines the argument: if humans aren't even involved in exploring Mars, why would we need to know about humans' capacity for extended living in space?
(A) might seem off-limits because, if negated, it would attack a premise of the argument. But it's nonetheless a necessary assumption; if (A) were false, the argument wouldn't make any sense. This argument's premise builds in an assumption that humans will be involved in exploring Mars, so for the premise to be true, it's necessary that its assumptions are also true.
b
the capacities of ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ██████
If we negate (B), we get "astronauts' capacities are different from those of ordinary humans." That doesn't cause trouble for the argument though, for two reasons. One is that presumably astronauts will also be the ones involved in exploring Mars, so learning about astronauts' capacities is still helpful. Two is that even if astronauts have different capacities, the knowledge from the space station could still be useful regarding regular people if they happened to be the chosen Mars explorers.
c
no unforeseen medical ████████ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████
If we negate (C), we get "unforeseen medical problems will arise on the first mission to explore Mars." If anything, that would make information about humans' capacity to live in space even more important. It certainly wouldn't undermine the importance of this space station project.
d
a mission to ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██████
If we negate (D), we get "the Mars mission will not kick off many more exploration missions." That doesn't make any difference at all to the argument; whether this mission is the first of many or a one-and-done, the space station project still seems important to ensure the astronauts' health.
e
living in a █████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ████████ ██████████████ ███████ ████████
If we negate (E), we get "extended living in a spaceship does not present insurmountable medical problems." That's fine for the argument—the whole goal of the space station project is to learn more about humans' capacity to live in space. In fact, it's even better if any problems are not insurmountable, because then we can learn how to avoid them.