Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Posts: 55
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Please rate my AWA-Urgent
[#permalink]
31 Aug 2016, 12:17
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“The tragic crash of a medical helicopter last week points up a situation that needs to be addressed. The medical helicopter
industry supposedly has more stringent guidelines for training pilots and maintaining equipment than do
most other airline industries, but these guidelines do not appear to be working: statistics reveal that the rate of
medical-helicopter accidents is much higher than the rate of accidents for nonmedical helicopters or commercial
airliners.”
The argument claims that the medical helicopter supposedly has more stringent guidelines for training pilots and maintaining equipment than do most other airline industries, but these guidelines do not appear to be working. In order to support its claim , the argument states that the statistics reveal that the rate of medical helicopter accidents is much higher than that of non medical helicopter or commercial airlines. The argument misses out some key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Also, the argument conclusion is based on several assumptions with no clear evidence. Hence, the argument in its present state is weak and unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the guidelines for in place are not working because of high rate of medical helicopter accidents but provide no evidence to support this correlation. There are several factors such as weather conditions, technical fault etc that can be responsible for high rate of medical helicopter accidents. Suppose if most of the accidents reported in case of medical helicopters are due to extreme weather conditions, then the argument claim that stringent guidelines are not working will fall apart. The argument can be strengthened by providing relevant evidence such as evidence that most of the accidents reported were caused due to pilots mistake.
Secondly, the argument state the statistics that rate of medical helicopter accidents is much higher than that of non-medical or commercial airliners but provide no further information about these statistics. The argument here overlooks the fact that medical helicopters and non medical helicopters can be different in lot of factors such as operations, frequency etc. Therefore, the comparison between the rate of accidents in both the cases cannot be used to support the argument claim. It is possible that medical helicopters operate throughout the year and in difficult terrain, whereas the non medical helicopters operate only few times a year and in suitable terrain. In this case the rate of accidents in medical helicopters will higher than that of non-medical helicopters or commercial airliners despite stringent training guidelines for medical helicopters. The argument could be strengthened by providing information that shows the similarity in operations between medical helicopters and non medical helicopters.
In conclusion, the argument misses out the above stated factors and is therefore not convincing. The argument could be strengthened by providing evidence to support the above stated assumptions. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.