First AWA - short feedback is much appreciated (non-native)

The argument states that transponders which are newly installed into commercial airplanes lead to fewer mid-air plane collisions.
Stated this way ( This is not very appropriate), the claim is based on a number of illogical assumptions. Furthermore, some major flaws can be detected which will also be discussed below. – You can use a better template than this.

First, the argument states that the transponders are installed( Check the tense. Its not yet installed. Is going to be installed) into commercial airliners. This statement is quite weak because it assumes that only commercial airplanes will get this new device. The problem with this assumption is that it neglects privately owned airplanes which are also flying from airport to airport (awkward, can find better expression) Equipping these planes with the transponder could be a major advantage for flight security. This could further decrease mid-air collisions.
While the majority of air travel might be commercially driven, installing the transponder first and foremost in commercial airliners is reasonable. However private planes will would benefit from the added device as well.
In this para instead of saying ” private planes will also benefit” which actually sounds like you are supporting the argument, you could say since the argument failed to consider all other aircrafts including cargo,private jets etc that will also cause collisions…….

The argument could have been much clearer mentioning the reasons behind equipping only commercially used airliners with the new transponder.

Second, the claim mentions that once the transponder is installed with(in) planes, midair plane collisions will be solved. This is a bold statement and should be worth a closer look. In order to reduce collisions in the air, one must evaluate how well the transponder works and how reliable the transponder is. The argument is based on the assumption that the device works without any errors at all times. However, planes flying at high altitude may encounter bad weather, storms, thunder and lightning. The transponder must handle bad weather exceptionally well. The argument also tells us that the transponder basically works via radio signals. It is safe to say that other radio signals are out there and might interfere with the radio signal from another plance.
Before installing the transponder into planes, one should make sure that the technology of the transponder is tested for anything that could distort its functionality.

Finally, one should ask whether installing the transponder only in commercially used airplanes makes sense and why the transponders are not installed into privately used airplanes. Another question should be with regards to the transponder's reliability. Are there any circumstances during a flight that could distort the transponders functionality?
Without convincing answers to these questions, the argument is not very strong and the underlying assumptions are rather weak.

This para sounds similar to first para.

The argument is flawed due to the above mentioned reasons. In order to correctly derive a substantiated opinion, one should first get answers to the posed questions. For a differentiated opinion, all relevant information should be known in advance.
Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Overall, I find your logic to be good enough. But you gotta be careful on the grammar,spelling and the construction. If you are non native you could find some good templates to be used as beginning and conclusion which will minimise the errors. Thanks..Good luck ..