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 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.
24 Jul 2012, 12:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi everyone,
I will take my GMAT at the end of August. I started my first essay writing today. I hope you can spare some time help me out by providing some feedbacks.
Thanks a lot. Have a good time.
----
"The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collision. 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 claims that the installation of a computerized on-board warning system on commercial airliners will resolve the midair plane collision issue owing to the system's ability to identify the likelihood of a collision and suggest evasive action. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that only by installing a computerized on-board warning system on commercial airliners, the midair plane collision problem will be settled. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous situations in which collisions still happen despite the fact that the flight crews have received recommendations of evasive action from the computerized on-board warning facilities. The reason for such collisions in many times is the negligence of the pilots to the computerized warning. In many cases, the pilots might think that the alert was exaggerated compared to the real situations and decided not to follow the warning system instructions. As a result, the crash between two planes still happens. Clearly, there is a possibility of an airliner with a computerized on-board warning system to still face a mid-air plane crash due to human-related reasons. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that recommendations of evasive action from the warning system were strictly followed by all people involved on flight.
Second, the argument claims that the commercial plane can avoid the collision because one's plane warning system can receive the signals from another's transponder and recommend evasive action if there is a possibility of a collision. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation in mid-air signal transmission capabilities between a commercial airliner which is equipped with a computerized on-board warning system and a non-commercial airliner which is not installed with mentioned system. Specifically, a commercial plane installed with computerized on-board warning facilities can completely face a high risk of a collision if it flies near a non-commercial plane which has a transponder that is non-compatible with the commercial airliner's warning system. This means none of the two planes receive signals from each other, which leads to a high possibility of crash. If the argument had provided the evidence that the new system installed on commercial airliners would be able to collaborate well with warning systems of non-commercial airliners, then the argument would have a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument fails to consider some other factors related to natural conditions that possibly contribute to the incorrect functioning of a warning system which causes collision. What will happen if a commercial plane installed with a computerized on-board warning system experiences severe mid-air weather condition and the system stops operating? Without convincing answers to this question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no leg to stand on.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above-mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
I will take my GMAT at the end of August. I started my first essay writing today. I hope you can spare some time help me out by providing some feedbacks.
Thanks a lot. Have a good time.
----
"The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collision. 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 claims that the installation of a computerized on-board warning system on commercial airliners will resolve the midair plane collision issue owing to the system's ability to identify the likelihood of a collision and suggest evasive action. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that only by installing a computerized on-board warning system on commercial airliners, the midair plane collision problem will be settled. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous situations in which collisions still happen despite the fact that the flight crews have received recommendations of evasive action from the computerized on-board warning facilities. The reason for such collisions in many times is the negligence of the pilots to the computerized warning. In many cases, the pilots might think that the alert was exaggerated compared to the real situations and decided not to follow the warning system instructions. As a result, the crash between two planes still happens. Clearly, there is a possibility of an airliner with a computerized on-board warning system to still face a mid-air plane crash due to human-related reasons. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that recommendations of evasive action from the warning system were strictly followed by all people involved on flight.
Second, the argument claims that the commercial plane can avoid the collision because one's plane warning system can receive the signals from another's transponder and recommend evasive action if there is a possibility of a collision. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation in mid-air signal transmission capabilities between a commercial airliner which is equipped with a computerized on-board warning system and a non-commercial airliner which is not installed with mentioned system. Specifically, a commercial plane installed with computerized on-board warning facilities can completely face a high risk of a collision if it flies near a non-commercial plane which has a transponder that is non-compatible with the commercial airliner's warning system. This means none of the two planes receive signals from each other, which leads to a high possibility of crash. If the argument had provided the evidence that the new system installed on commercial airliners would be able to collaborate well with warning systems of non-commercial airliners, then the argument would have a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument fails to consider some other factors related to natural conditions that possibly contribute to the incorrect functioning of a warning system which causes collision. What will happen if a commercial plane installed with a computerized on-board warning system experiences severe mid-air weather condition and the system stops operating? Without convincing answers to this question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no leg to stand on.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above-mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
souvik101990
Expert
Alum
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,314
Given Kudos: 2,326
Location: United States (WA)
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Schools: Ross '20 (M)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
Expert reply
24 Jul 2012, 13:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
i can spot some grammatical errors
though i have absolutely no knowledge about AWA, i think those should be avoided
though i have absolutely no knowledge about AWA, i think those should be avoided
24 Jul 2012, 13:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi souvik101990,
Thanks for your feedback. Can you please highlight the errors for me? I will review it as well. Thank you.
Thanks for your feedback. Can you please highlight the errors for me? I will review it as well. Thank you.
