Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
12 Jan 2020, 13:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
"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.
14 Jan 2020, 08:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
bansalgaurav
Joined: 26 Mar 2021
Last visit: 20 Nov 2021
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 36
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: IIMB EPGP'23
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
09 Aug 2021, 19:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
