|
|
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.
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, 10:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
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."
Essay:
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, the 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 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."
Essay:
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, the 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.
09 Aug 2021, 10:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
bansalgaurav
Please post according to the AWA forum rules.
Read the rules here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
Thank you
Moderator:
