Joined: 22 Dec 2009
, given: 13
AWA/Argument..Can you please rate this [#permalink]
22 Jan 2010, 00:12
Hi.. This is my first time writing AWA argument..
If anyone out there could rate this and give me some advice it will be grateful.. Thank you very much..
I know I do have grammer prob and not good at writing since im non-native English speaker..
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:
The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One planes warning system can recieve signals from anothers transponder -a radio set that signals a planes course- in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action.
"Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or fefute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
MY ESSAY IS................
The argument is stated that installing the computerized on-board warning system in airplane will reduce midair plane collisions by receiving to determine appropriate action. Such statement cannot is not convincible to determine whether to install due to a lack of several evidence and/or data.
First, there is a lack of past collision data to evaluate the cause of an accident. The argument states new system installation in airplane will reduce midair collision however, it hasn’t shown the rate of an accident as also the cause. If plane already have installed similar warning system, it can weaken the reason to install. If this is true, there could be different issue to address such like, lack of staff training on usability or other system problem that may have occurred. Such data should be put together to determine as system installation is a positive fact to reduce collision.
Second, the argument overlooks research data of once the system has installed. According to the argument, warning system can receive signals from another’s transponder thus appropriate action can be taken. Future prediction can be only made based on analysis, fact or data. If this system is newly developed, where hasn’t been utilized in airplane, it cannot ensure to reduce midair collision, yet there will be a chance to cause more collision. Overlooking such data can create major problem.
Lastly, the argument fails to note, whether such system installation is necessary on both airplanes or on either airplane is sufficient when the likelihood of a collision. If it is necessary for whole plane to install new warning system in order to reduce collision, there will be more depth consideration to address to encourage aerospace industry. Such consideration can raise cost issue or even it is necessary to create new regulation within the industry if it can prove the installation is the reduction of collision. Otherwise it is pointless to install on limited airplane.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant points by using a data. Also, it is necessary to clarify whether installation of such system is reduction or prevent the collision. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing points.