|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
15 Nov 2020, 07:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
Could any one please look into my essay and provide a feedback? This is my first attempt. Thanks
"The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One plane's warning system can receive signals from another's transponder--a radio set that signals a plane's course--in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action."
The argument above claims that the computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in the commercial airliners will virtually solve the issue of midair plane collisions. This conclusion is based on the fact that one plane’s warning system can receive the signals from another’s responders and that will assist in providing information to avoid collision and recommend evasive action. In my opinion, the argument lacks data and important correlations to draw the necessary conclusion that it does.
Firstly, the argument completely ignores the possibility of malfunctioning of the computerized warning system. Being a machine, the warning system is prone to mal-function and that could cause midair plane collisions. The data with respect to the likelihood of the computerized warning system getting malfunctioned has not been provided. In case the likelihood is 10%, it cannot be said that installing the computerized system would virtually solve the problem.
Secondly, no information has been provided with respect to the compatibility of the current planes with the proposed warning system. Every machine, to work efficiently, needs to be compatible with the main system in which it is installed. In case the current planes do not have the necessary technology to support the functioning of the computerized system, the entire exercise could turn futile.
Thirdly, the argument does not mention about the training needed to operate the new system. As the system will be installed for the first time, the pilots need to be trained to use it efficiently and timely. As all the pilots work at different time periods and the flights operate virtually every hour, it would be difficult to get all the pilots trained at the same time. In case of a possible mid-air collision, one pilot knows how to use the system, as he had been trained, but the other pilot, due to busy working schedules, could not be trained as yet. In such a scenario, even if the system is installed, a tragedy may not be averted.
Though the proposal to install the new warning system seems to be a good proposal, however in the absence of critical information, as mentioned hereinabove, it would be rash to assume that such an installation will virtually cease the midair collisions. Thus, the argument lacks key information and needs to have the same for the reader to come to the desired conclusion.
Could any one please look into my essay and provide a feedback? This is my first attempt. Thanks
"The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One plane's warning system can receive signals from another's transponder--a radio set that signals a plane's course--in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action."
The argument above claims that the computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in the commercial airliners will virtually solve the issue of midair plane collisions. This conclusion is based on the fact that one plane’s warning system can receive the signals from another’s responders and that will assist in providing information to avoid collision and recommend evasive action. In my opinion, the argument lacks data and important correlations to draw the necessary conclusion that it does.
Firstly, the argument completely ignores the possibility of malfunctioning of the computerized warning system. Being a machine, the warning system is prone to mal-function and that could cause midair plane collisions. The data with respect to the likelihood of the computerized warning system getting malfunctioned has not been provided. In case the likelihood is 10%, it cannot be said that installing the computerized system would virtually solve the problem.
Secondly, no information has been provided with respect to the compatibility of the current planes with the proposed warning system. Every machine, to work efficiently, needs to be compatible with the main system in which it is installed. In case the current planes do not have the necessary technology to support the functioning of the computerized system, the entire exercise could turn futile.
Thirdly, the argument does not mention about the training needed to operate the new system. As the system will be installed for the first time, the pilots need to be trained to use it efficiently and timely. As all the pilots work at different time periods and the flights operate virtually every hour, it would be difficult to get all the pilots trained at the same time. In case of a possible mid-air collision, one pilot knows how to use the system, as he had been trained, but the other pilot, due to busy working schedules, could not be trained as yet. In such a scenario, even if the system is installed, a tragedy may not be averted.
Though the proposal to install the new warning system seems to be a good proposal, however in the absence of critical information, as mentioned hereinabove, it would be rash to assume that such an installation will virtually cease the midair collisions. Thus, the argument lacks key information and needs to have the same for the reader to come to the desired conclusion.
Moderators:
188 posts
