The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in com

Hi! If anyone could provide any quick feedback for the gmat essay I wrote, that would be much appreciated. Thank you!


"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 argues that the installed computerized on-board warning systems will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. However, this problematic for numerous reasons. The evidence suggested is weak and does not provide a convincing argument as to how it can effectively solve the problem of midair plane collisions.
Most tenuously, this argument is based on the assumption that all midair plane collisions come from an action that could have been evaded, namely from the pilot. If the way the airplane avoids midair plane collisions is through the recommended evasive action of the on-board warning system, it is, therefore, assuming that all of the collisions are the fault of the pilots. In that case, there would be no inexplicable accidents that happen simply due to the dangerous nature of flying. Therefore, the argument could be stronger if there was evidence included that displayed the statistics of how often midair plane collisions are caused by an action avoidable by the pilot. If the statistics show that those avoidable cases happen over fifty percent of the time, it would make the argument stronger.
Furthermore, the argument is not reasonable because it assumes that the plane itself has no technical issues. These issues may include the computerized warning system not working, issues with the engine, or any issues that may be unavoidable. If there was evidence included that showed that most of the crashes come from technical issues, the argument would be weakened. This is because the argument is based on the assumption that the computerized on-board system that will be installed in commercial airliners will work in all circumstances to solve the problem of midair plane collisions.
Finally, the argument is based on the assumption that the warning from the computerized system will present itself close enough to the potential accident that the pilot can take a course of action. If there was evidence that it only takes 30 seconds for a pilot to switch the course of a plane to avoid a collision, and the computerized warning system can detect a plane and signal it back to another transponder at least 2 minutes before a potential accident, it will support the argument. This evidence would thereby suggest that the computerized warning system will indeed be effective as pilots will be able to commit to an action that will save the plane from a crash, long before the crash begins.
In conclusion, after analyzing the reasoning and evidence presented, I have concluded that the argument that the warning system of the plane can virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions is not persuasive as it is based on a number of rash assumptions. First, the argument is based on the assumption that all midair plane collisions come from an evadable action. Second, the argument is based on the assumption that the computerized system will always work, and lastly, the argument assumes that the timing between receiving a warning and taking action will be long enough for a pilot to avoid a collision. Overall, the argument could be strengthened with evidence that proves the effectiveness of the computerized on-board system in order to more confidently determine whether the warning systems can indeed solve the mid-air plane collisions.

Hi Amandax
In terms of ideas, finding gaps and critical thinking, you are great.
But your sentence structure is somehow complicated. Try avoid using ambiguous pronouns. Try revising the grammatical usage if conditional If and its tenses. Make sure that your modifiers are not so far form what they modify, and that the subjects are not too far from the verbs. (this writing can score 4.5-5)

Simple fine-tuning can lead you to 5.5-6
Please revise this template, it would provide you with some insight, save you time and avoid minor mistakes.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html?fl=menu

Please review my essay based on the same argument :


The argument claims that the computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of mid-air plane collisions. The argument is based on the premise that one plane’s warning system can receive signals from another’s transponder. The argument is also based on the premise that the warning system shall help determine the likelihood of a collision and shall recommend evasive action. In order to draw the conclusion, the argument takes into account several assumptions which have not been validated. The argument is unconvincing and has several flaws. It manipulated facts and give a distorted view of the situation.

First, the argument assumes that the warning system has been tried and tested. It also assumes 100% accuracy of the warning system. These assumptions are flawed as no data in the argument have been mentioned to support them. Since every life is important, any accuracy of less than 100% can pose danger to the lives of the people traveling. Moreover, a sufficient number of trials need to be conducted, as mandated by the regulatory authority, in order to conclude any such warning system. The argument lacks information on trials conducted and the accuracy of the system and hence this is a serious flaw.

Second, the argument assumes that the warning system informs in time and allows sufficient time to evacuate. This is a very weak and unsupported assumption. What if the warning signals are received with no time to evacuate? The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the time duration the warning system allows to evacuate. To add, all recommended evasive action may not need the same time. If a recommended evasive action may require more time to execute than available, the warning system shall fail to prevent the collision. The argument sounds weak in the absence of any such information and is inconclusive.

Third, the argument presents no information on the type of airliners that can adapt to the warning system. The argument assumes that the warning system shall work with all the airliners. The warning system being a computerized technology-driven on-board system, may not work with all the airliners. As a matter of fact, the technology in the old generation and new generation airliners is different. Also, it is not clear whether all the airliners have adapted to the latest technology and shall easily work with the warning system. Clearly, the argument fails to provide any such evidence.

To conclude, the argument lacks the necessary information to support the conclusion. The argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The argument could be considerably strengthened if it presented data on the warning system accuracy, adaptability with all the airliners, and time duration for evacuation. It is also important to have information on whether the proposed evasive action is workable in all situations. Without the necessary data, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate. Hence, the argument is inconclusive.

Good Luck

Hey Sajjad1994 I am strongly thankful to you for reviewing my essay. Thank You, brother !!!!

Hi Sajjad1994 - could you please evaluate my below essay on the same prompt please- appreciate you a lot!

The argument’s conclusion that the installation of an on-board warning system will solve problems of mid-air collisions- omits certain concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the argument.

The author seems to assume in his reasoning that the majority mid-air collisions that have happened in the past can be attributed to the inability to assess the likelihood of a collision.

Moreover, the author draws a blanket assumption that the computerized on-board warning system will function properly most of the time so much so that the likelihood of a collision can be assessed with great accuracy. Not just this, the argument also assumes that there would be enough technical expertise or operational capability in perhaps the personnel of the control unit in the commercial airlines to accurately interpret the right signals and thereby assess the likelihood of a collision.

Therefore, in order to assess or evaluate the author’s reasoning, it would be suitable to know: one, the probability of the warning system to assess the likelihood of a collision and two: if there exists personnel on the commercial airlines with sufficient operational capability to operate and interpret the computerized on-board warning system to execute the recommended evasive action by the computerized on-board warning system.

Hence, in the light of the above evaluations, it can be said that the author’s reasoning has unsupportive claims and can be weakened in case the warning system doesn’t detect the likelihood most of the time.

Hey Sajjad1994 wondering if you got a chance to check the above?

I am assuming the following is the prompt your essay is based on.

"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."



1. With this length of text, only three paragraphs will look reasonable.
2. In 30 minutes you are supposed to write a bit more than this (The length of the essay is short).

Good Luck

Hello, could someone please grade my essay, any feedback is welcome and would be very helpful. Thanks in advance!

In the article the author argues in favour of a computerized warning systems ability to eliminate almost all mid-air collisions. Although, the author although makes a strong claim, due to a lack of supporting evidence and integral pieces of data missing the conclusions is unfounded and leaves multiple unanswered questions.

Firstly, the author has made a sweeping claim that a computerised system will virtually solve the problem of mid-air flight collisions. The argument here fails to consider the complexities involved in on-board computerized system and the possibility of a technical glitch being the cause of a colloision. The author seems to put blind faith in the technology whithout providing enough supporting evidence for the reader leaving much room for doubt in his claim. For instance, what happens if the weather is bad and the radio signals are hampared? At what distance can the plane detect another plane and provide warnings? What happens if the transponder fails? The author has failed to answer multiple criticial questions that would bolster the case for on-board warning systems.

Secondly, although the author argues that collisions for all planes will stop, he states that only commercial airlines will be fitted with the system. The author fails to consider the various other planes that could cause mid air collisions, for example, maybe the highest number of mid-air colloisions are between private jets and commrcial airlines. If private jets are not fitted with the system this excersice would be futile and have negligible impact on the number of mid-air collisions. Had the author provided more statitical data proving that commercial jets are the main culprits for mid-air, the argument would have been strengthned.

Lastly, the effectiveness of the system seems to eventually rely on the abilities of the pilot since the system only provides reccomendations of evasive actions. The author fails to shine enough light on this aspect of the system which seriously undermines the validity of his argument. For example, there is no informaition provided on how early a pilot is warned and how much time he has to respond. The author also fails to elaborate on the “likelihood of collision” feature. If the system simply reads out a number, the final judgement is still left on the pilot. Thus the likelihood of collision will vary significantly from pilot to pilot and not much can concluded on the overall effectiveness of the system in preventing collisions.

The author has much information to explore before hastily jumping to his conclusion. Had he answered some of the above stated questions the arguement would have been merited, however, since he fails to do so the overall argument leads to the illogical conclusion that virtually all mid air collisions will be avoided.

Note: Abbreviations if used must be with periods separating the letters (A.B.C. and not ABC)

Good Luck

Hi Sajjad1994 ..

May I request for evaluation of my essay on the undermentioned Argument..Thanks in advance for your welcome feedback ..!!


"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, possibly published as a science magazine or newspaper science page article, describes a technique aimed at achieving safety against mid-air collisions of commercial airliners. It is possibly based on the assumption that one plane's warning system will always be able to receive signals from an the transponder of another airplane flying in proximity. Another plane's transponder will be able to chart the original plane's future course through the air. The author has pitched his argument in favour of the computerised on-board warning systems adopting such an innovative techique.

While the procedure has been adequately explained, the author assumes that the transmission and reception of signal between the airplanes will 'always' be achieved. However, the argument fails to cater for instances viz. technical glitches, inclement weather conditions, faulty navigation equipment in one/both airplanes etc, which have the potential to lead to mid-air plane collisions.

Additional evidence, particularly regarding operating parameters ie, the operating range of warning system equipment at various altitudes, will substantiate the author's argument. Evaluation of all related parametrs, duly supported in the form of verification through experimental results under actual conditions in the sky, will lend credence to the efficacy of computerised on-board warning system.

In the absence of adequate proof related to functioning of the equipment system, the efficacy may not be fully ascertained. Simultaneously, the adoption of the on-board warning system or otherwise by the commercial airliners is also contingent upon experimental verification of the efficacy of the tecnique under prevalent weather conditions, while in flight.

The author needs to highlight related material in the form of experimental evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the author's conclusion appears void and logically unsound toward meriting his conclusion 'in favour' of the eficacy of on-board warning system towards successfully averting mid-air collisions. .

Good Luck