-
kashefian
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:42 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:1 members
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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Plain collisions are of drastically increasing importance as of late and various methods are proposed to mitigate the risk of these catastrophic accidents. The author in this argument assumes equipping the commercial airlines with a computerized warning system would necessarily resolve the problem of air collision. A careful examination of the argument would show that the line of reasoning is flawed especially because the author relies solely on his unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions.
The primary problem in author's reasoning is in his unsubstantiated assumptions. The author, as an instance, assumes that the main cause of the midair plain collisions is lack of a warning system. The author does not provide us with evidence that lack of a warning system is the main reason why air collisions happen. As a result, attributing air collisions to other causes would render the author's argument invalid.
The secondary flaw in the author's line of reasoning is very similar to the first one. He again, assumes most of the plain collisions are caused by commercial aircrafts whereas other types like private planes would cause most of the air collisions.
The author would strengthen his argument if he provided the readers with evidence to support his assumptions and premises. For example he would refer to statistics that shows that the main cause of the air collisions is that the pilot is not warned of another plane approaching. Moreover, some other statistics would show that most of the air collisions has happened when two commercial planes collide.
In sum, although the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render the conclusion invalid, If the author truly hopes to change the readers' mind on the issue, he would need to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Plain collisions are of drastically increasing importance as of late and various methods are proposed to mitigate the risk of these catastrophic accidents. The author in this argument assumes equipping the commercial airlines with a computerized warning system would necessarily resolve the problem of air collision. A careful examination of the argument would show that the line of reasoning is flawed especially because the author relies solely on his unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions.
The primary problem in author's reasoning is in his unsubstantiated assumptions. The author, as an instance, assumes that the main cause of the midair plain collisions is lack of a warning system. The author does not provide us with evidence that lack of a warning system is the main reason why air collisions happen. As a result, attributing air collisions to other causes would render the author's argument invalid.
The secondary flaw in the author's line of reasoning is very similar to the first one. He again, assumes most of the plain collisions are caused by commercial aircrafts whereas other types like private planes would cause most of the air collisions.
The author would strengthen his argument if he provided the readers with evidence to support his assumptions and premises. For example he would refer to statistics that shows that the main cause of the air collisions is that the pilot is not warned of another plane approaching. Moreover, some other statistics would show that most of the air collisions has happened when two commercial planes collide.
In sum, although the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render the conclusion invalid, If the author truly hopes to change the readers' mind on the issue, he would need to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
