A leading critic of space exploration contends that it would be wrong, given current technology, to send a group of explorers to Mars, since the explorers would be unlikely to survive the trip. ███ ████ ███████████ ███ █████ █████ █████ ██ █ ███████████████ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ███████████ ████████ █ █████ ███████████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████
The author concludes that explorers to Mars would not be unlikely to survive the trip to Mars. This is based on the fact that there would be a well-engineered backup system at every stage of the trip. In addition, at each stage of the trip, a fatal accident is unlikely if the backup system is in place.
The author overlooks the possibility that the risk of a fatal accident for the trip overall is greater than 50%, even if the risk at each individual stage is less than 50%. In other words, the author overlooks the possibility that what is true about the part (having a less than 50% chance of accident) might not be true about the overall whole.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
infers that something ██ ████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████
infers that something ██████ █████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████
draws a conclusion █████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ████
infers that something ████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ ████
rejects a view ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██