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.
=============================================================
In the above argument author concludes that installation of a computerized on-board warning system in commercial airlines will solve the problem of mid air plane collisions. The premise is that warning system of one plane can receive signals from another's transponder, which can be used to determine the likelihood of collision and help in taking evasive action. However, the above argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that only installation of the computerized device will lead to solving the problem of mid air collisions and it also assumes that either currently there is no similar collision avoidance system installed on the commercial airlines or the installed one is at least not as equally efficient as is the computerized on-board system. In addition author completely ignores the external factors that might be responsible for success or failure of the computerized warning system.
First, author falsely assumes that only receiving signals will lead to avoidance of collision. However, it is entirely possible that despite getting the signals, pilots/copilots are either not able to understand the signals or not able to react in time to avoid the collision. Thus it will be no surprise that even after installation of computerized on board system, the problem of mid air collisions continues.
Second, author assumes that either there is no collision avoidance system installed in commercial airline or is not equally competitive to the computerized on-board system. However, it is entirely possible that equally good collision avoidance systems are already installed in the commercial airlines but due to pilots not paying enough attention or not getting training about these systems, the problem of mid air collision persist. Thus even after installation of computerized on-board system, it is certainly possible that the same situation will be repeated and the problem of mid air collision continues.
Third, the author is taking external factors such as communication links, weather pattern etc. to be completely predictable and virtually error free. However, it is entirely possible that at extreme weather conditions, computerized on board systems do not work. Furthermore possibility of communication failure is also totally ignored by the argument. In these conditions too, despite installing computerized on board system, the problem of mid air collision will continue.
In conclusion, the above newspaper article is flawed because it wrongly concludes that only installation of computerized on-board warning system will lead to avoidance of mid air collision. It leaves several key points as are discussed above. The argument could have been made more persuasive and thorough, if it would have addressed the points as are discussed above.
"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.
=============================================================
In the above argument author concludes that installation of a computerized on-board warning system in commercial airlines will solve the problem of mid air plane collisions. The premise is that warning system of one plane can receive signals from another's transponder, which can be used to determine the likelihood of collision and help in taking evasive action. However, the above argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that only installation of the computerized device will lead to solving the problem of mid air collisions and it also assumes that either currently there is no similar collision avoidance system installed on the commercial airlines or the installed one is at least not as equally efficient as is the computerized on-board system. In addition author completely ignores the external factors that might be responsible for success or failure of the computerized warning system.
First, author falsely assumes that only receiving signals will lead to avoidance of collision. However, it is entirely possible that despite getting the signals, pilots/copilots are either not able to understand the signals or not able to react in time to avoid the collision. Thus it will be no surprise that even after installation of computerized on board system, the problem of mid air collisions continues.
Second, author assumes that either there is no collision avoidance system installed in commercial airline or is not equally competitive to the computerized on-board system. However, it is entirely possible that equally good collision avoidance systems are already installed in the commercial airlines but due to pilots not paying enough attention or not getting training about these systems, the problem of mid air collision persist. Thus even after installation of computerized on-board system, it is certainly possible that the same situation will be repeated and the problem of mid air collision continues.
Third, the author is taking external factors such as communication links, weather pattern etc. to be completely predictable and virtually error free. However, it is entirely possible that at extreme weather conditions, computerized on board systems do not work. Furthermore possibility of communication failure is also totally ignored by the argument. In these conditions too, despite installing computerized on board system, the problem of mid air collision will continue.
In conclusion, the above newspaper article is flawed because it wrongly concludes that only installation of computerized on-board warning system will lead to avoidance of mid air collision. It leaves several key points as are discussed above. The argument could have been made more persuasive and thorough, if it would have addressed the points as are discussed above.
