GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 08 Dec 2019, 03:01

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

#### Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 27

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2014, 10:42
1
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 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 author of the newspaper article is claiming that once computerized on-board warning systems are installed in commercial airlines, the midair plane collision problems will all be solved. The author's argument may be true, but there are other factors that should be looked upon first. Some of which include, statistical data which compares before and after the on-board system, the accuracy of the radio signals transmitted from the system, and other unaccountable external human factors. This essay will discuss each factor against the author's claim.

Firstly, one of the responsibilities of a commercial airliner is to safely transport passengers from point A to point B. The computerized on-board warning system appears to be a useful tool that can accomplish this, but the article lacks any statistical evidence to back up the claim. The author does not mention any type of simulation testing nor does he/she mention how airliners performed prior to the system versus after. Having statistical data would make the authors claim much stronger especially when passenger safety is at risk.

Secondly, the authors first statement claims the system to "virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions". This claim is misleading and alarming, it assumes there are currently many midair plane collisions, which the article does not clarify. The author mentions the airliners can use radio signals to communicate with each other. There is no information regarding how accurate radio signals are at the time of the article. Perhaps, there is better technology with a similar concept that airliners can use. Until more evidence is presented regarding the accuracy of the radio signals, the author's claim is too strong.

Thirdly, the author fails to consider external factors such as the weather and the pilot. Arguably, the most important factors to the success of a flight. There is no mention if the radio signals will still be reliable in the event of poor weather. There is no mention if a pilot can override the system and turn off the radio signals. These two factors alone make it difficult to believe that the proposed system can "virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions".

Overall, the authors argument contains many flaws that must be looked at before accepting such claim to be true. There are many factors that determine an airliners safety that has not been mentioned. The author needs to seek further statistical data prior to making such a strong claim.
Intern
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Posts: 2

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2014, 11:43
1
I think the essay is little shorter than expected. Content is good. I would give a 4.5. I myself got a 6.0 in the AWA.

I think you should use keywords like 'assumptions', 'flawed', 'argument', 'conclusion', 'premises', 'inadequate', 'alternate explanation', 'alternate theories', 'justified', etc. The machine reader, I believe, would look for keywords.
Intern
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 27

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2014, 21:16
Intern
Joined: 28 Dec 2017
Posts: 24

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2019, 14:43
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 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."

In drawing this conclusion author not only fails to account the statistical data pertinent to mid air collision but also draws conclusion without any evidence. Furthermore, Author’s conclusion is too strong without substantiating premises. Author also overlooks various other possibility relevant to midair collision .There are several flaws for the above argument.

First, Author concluded that the computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airlines will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collision without considering the other categories of aircraft. For example, there is a possibility of collision between cargo aircraft and fighter aircraft. Author must try to consider all the factors to recommend a prudent decision.

Second, Author argues that one plane’s warning system can receive signals from another’s transponder in order to determine the likelihood of collision and recommend evasive action. However, author ignored the fact that planes travel at very high speed, which doesn’t give pilot ample amount of time to react and to take evasive action. Furthermore, there are variety of airlines on global scale and it is not feasible to convince every airline to buy such warning system.

Third, Author assumes that there is no other radio signal, which could interfere with plane’s radio signal. For example, almost in every commercial airlines there are strict instruction given by cabin crew to switch off the mobile or place it on airplane mode to avoid interference of radio signals. The interference could worsen the situation rather than resolving it. In this case author must identify and explore relevant factors to justify the solution. Furthermore, Author haven’t provided any statistical data about frequency of midair collision. It is possible that there are negligible midair collision.

If author could avoid the items mentioned above, the argument should have been more logical and credible. The argument could be strengthen if the author provided information considering all variety of aircrafts, feasibility and statistical data. As it stands, however the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.
Intern
Joined: 22 Jun 2019
Posts: 27

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2019, 06:36
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 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 daily newspaper claims that the midair collisions between two planes can be prevented by installing the computerized on-board warning system in commercial planes that will communicate through signals using radio transponders. This will assist the pilots in taking crucial decisions since they can gauge the probability or likelihood of any midair collision. The argument although sounds logical on certain front but seriously lacks evidence to support the claim and hence remains flawed on many grounds.

Firstly, the argument nowhere mentions about any evidence that similar installation has been done before even in railway or naval ships/cruise that might have reduced collisions or accidents considerably. There is no mention about how the communication will be established between the warning system of both planes that might be approaching each other on the same opposite course at a higher speed. In such a scenario there may not be ample duration for the installed warning system to generate signals and then for the pilots to take decision of changing the course or altering the altitude to allow the other to fly over or below.

In a popular TV documentary show, “Seconds from disaster” aired on NatGeo channel, it has been shown that sometime due to unfavorable weather conditions or harsh climate over certain regions the visibility becomes a great challenge. Under such condition, two commercial planes carrying over 300 passengers happen to proceed on the same course heading straight towards each other and the pilots are left in a dilemma as whether to change routes or altitude. Such a short span of time do not give them enough room to make a mutual decision and fly past each other. In many cases, such collisions were found to be results of ATC personnel’s mistakes, who either take a break leaving the radio transmitter unattended or unable to make correct decision within time. In such cases installing even smarter anti-collision systems wont help if there is any technical snag.

Secondly, the argument also doesn’t talk about the cost of installing such systems and whether such installations can be afforded by all airliner companies operating around the world. Furthermore, the midair collision are not the only cause of flight crashes or accidents that lead to loss of lives. There are many other factors that need serious attention when it comes to the safety of the passengers and the crew on board, which otherwise may lead to a commercial plane crash down on grounds. Such factors involve machinery failures in the cockpit and fuel leakage problems or even wheellock incidences. This should be first taken care of before looking into factors that have comparatively lower chances of occurrence.

Finally, the ATC should be more concerned and careful about navigating the commercial airliners and take proper surveillance on their paths and course of movement to prevent any sort of midair mishap. Although the argument sounds to be a good move towards preventing midair collisions but due to lack of evidences to support its claims, it remains flawed on many grounds and open to questions and doubts.
Display posts from previous: Sort by