The Student Room Group

Help Structuring Science Based EPQ

I am planning to do my EPQ on how far humans will be able to travel into space. However, I have read that top marks inn the EPQ tend to go to those who have a topic with 2 sides to it which could allow for some debate, whereas a science based topic would be based more on objective investigation rather than subjective debate.

So, how would I introduce opinion and controversy into my EPQ topic and make it so that there are 2 different sides that you can argue for? I am willing to slightly alter my topic if you have any alternative suggestions that would allow me to achieve my aim (I think my topic has to be much more specific so I will probably have to alter it anyway). Could you also suggest how I would structure this EPQ and what I could include in it?
For the “two sides of the argument” side you could balance the argument by looking into ways that humans can progress in space travel and all the possibilities for going far into space with it’s reverse being reasons why we cannot travel into space. E.g:

FAR INTO SPACE
“Development of new technologies (for example the Mars Rover) could see the human race being able to design a spacecraft able to carry humans into deep space as we have already successfully developed a piece of machinery that is able to transmit information back to Earth, highlighting our advancements in engineering”

NOT VERY FAR INTO SPACE

“However, this is only to the next the planet from us so this is not very far (in terms of distance into space) and the Mars Rover doesn’t support any human life so, this may show how humans are not ready to design more complex spacecrafts needed for long-term human life support on longer journeys”

Obviously, you’d do more research than that (just what I could come up with off the top my head) and you’d come up with better subtitles than “Far into space” and “Not very far into space” (what can I say, I’m no poet 😂) but it’s all about trying to flip and reverse the argument and finding evidence to back up reasons why space travel works and doesn’t.

Hope this helps,

:smile:
Reply 2
Original post by dreamerz11
For the “two sides of the argument” side you could balance the argument by looking into ways that humans can progress in space travel and all the possibilities for going far into space with it’s reverse being reasons why we cannot travel into space. E.g:

FAR INTO SPACE
“Development of new technologies (for example the Mars Rover) could see the human race being able to design a spacecraft able to carry humans into deep space as we have already successfully developed a piece of machinery that is able to transmit information back to Earth, highlighting our advancements in engineering”

NOT VERY FAR INTO SPACE

“However, this is only to the next the planet from us so this is not very far (in terms of distance into space) and the Mars Rover doesn’t support any human life so, this may show how humans are not ready to design more complex spacecrafts needed for long-term human life support on longer journeys”

Obviously, you’d do more research than that (just what I could come up with off the top my head) and you’d come up with better subtitles than “Far into space” and “Not very far into space” (what can I say, I’m no poet 😂) but it’s all about trying to flip and reverse the argument and finding evidence to back up reasons why space travel works and doesn’t.

Hope this helps,

:smile:


In the end, I just decided to change my topic completely to something unrelated, but thanks for your help. Wish I would've seen it earlier.
Original post by dan_13579
In the end, I just decided to change my topic completely to something unrelated, but thanks for your help. Wish I would've seen it earlier.

Hahah, fair dos. Hope it goes well for you! :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest