The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“The tragic crash of a medical helicopter last week points up a situation that needs to be addressed. The medical-helicopter industry supposedly has more stringent guidelines for training pilots and maintaining equipment than do most other airline industries, but these guidelines do not appear to be working: statistics reveal that the rate of medical-helicopter accidents is much higher than the rate of accidents for non-medical helicopters or commercial airliners.”
The author concludes that the problem of unsafe flight on medical-helicopter industry should exigently be solved. To substantiate this conclusion, the author points out the recent accident of a medical helicopter. Moreover, he claims that the medical-helicopter is supposed to have the most complete flying guidelines, yet the statistics of the rate of accidents show the big failure. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for the author’s questionable assumption, weak comparison and statistical errors.
Most conspicuously, it is senseless to determine that the medical helicopter ought to comprise perfect guidelines for training pilots and maintaining equipment than do most other airline industries. In fact, this is a dubious claim. Although medical-helicopters are mainly responsible for healthcare service and people’s lives, it does not mean that other airline industries have to be inferior in the aspect of safety. Actually, the commercial airlines should be more stringent because the number of passengers per flight is much higher than that of medical-helicopters. Furthermore, the commercial airlines have to fly many trips per day. On the contrary, the medical-helicopters take a flight only during emergency. Hence, the author’s statement that the medical-helicopters should be the most reliable example is unacceptable.
Also, the author’s line of reason is based on the weak analogy between medical-helicopters and non-medical helicopters. Nevertheless, there is no logical relationship between two types of airplanes, and the author does not attempt to show any connection either. For example, the problem of quick service and capable doctors affect the performance of medical airlines, but is virtually unfound in the counterparts. This argument would have been cogent, if the author had identified the similarities between medical-airlines and non-medical airlines. Otherwise, his analogy between the rates of accidents occurred among two types of airline industries would be invalid.
Finally, the author does not address the effectiveness of statistics accumulated the number of accidents between two types of airlines. The data can be inaccurate and biased. Since the author does not offer the total number of the whole flights and the actual number of accidents, it is impossible to assess the result. It would be very helpful to have some idea about actual number that the specified rate represents: one-fourth of 4,000 would be 1,000 which are numerous. In contrast, one-fourth of four would be only one which does not have much impact.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide additional corroborate that the medical-helicopters are more important than other airlines, and thus have to achieve the best safety of the whole airline industry by conducting a risk assessment report. The non-medical helicopters do not necessarily have to concern about this. In addition, the author has to offer the missing connection between medical-helicopters and non-medical helicopters. Otherwise, the author cannot compare that rate of accidents of two types of airlines. Most importantly, the actual number of accidents of both groups should also be given. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing, and fails to persuade the readers.
“The tragic crash of a medical helicopter last week points up a situation that needs to be addressed. The medical-helicopter industry supposedly has more stringent guidelines for training pilots and maintaining equipment than do most other airline industries, but these guidelines do not appear to be working: statistics reveal that the rate of medical-helicopter accidents is much higher than the rate of accidents for non-medical helicopters or commercial airliners.”
The author concludes that the problem of unsafe flight on medical-helicopter industry should exigently be solved. To substantiate this conclusion, the author points out the recent accident of a medical helicopter. Moreover, he claims that the medical-helicopter is supposed to have the most complete flying guidelines, yet the statistics of the rate of accidents show the big failure. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for the author’s questionable assumption, weak comparison and statistical errors.
Most conspicuously, it is senseless to determine that the medical helicopter ought to comprise perfect guidelines for training pilots and maintaining equipment than do most other airline industries. In fact, this is a dubious claim. Although medical-helicopters are mainly responsible for healthcare service and people’s lives, it does not mean that other airline industries have to be inferior in the aspect of safety. Actually, the commercial airlines should be more stringent because the number of passengers per flight is much higher than that of medical-helicopters. Furthermore, the commercial airlines have to fly many trips per day. On the contrary, the medical-helicopters take a flight only during emergency. Hence, the author’s statement that the medical-helicopters should be the most reliable example is unacceptable.
Also, the author’s line of reason is based on the weak analogy between medical-helicopters and non-medical helicopters. Nevertheless, there is no logical relationship between two types of airplanes, and the author does not attempt to show any connection either. For example, the problem of quick service and capable doctors affect the performance of medical airlines, but is virtually unfound in the counterparts. This argument would have been cogent, if the author had identified the similarities between medical-airlines and non-medical airlines. Otherwise, his analogy between the rates of accidents occurred among two types of airline industries would be invalid.
Finally, the author does not address the effectiveness of statistics accumulated the number of accidents between two types of airlines. The data can be inaccurate and biased. Since the author does not offer the total number of the whole flights and the actual number of accidents, it is impossible to assess the result. It would be very helpful to have some idea about actual number that the specified rate represents: one-fourth of 4,000 would be 1,000 which are numerous. In contrast, one-fourth of four would be only one which does not have much impact.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide additional corroborate that the medical-helicopters are more important than other airlines, and thus have to achieve the best safety of the whole airline industry by conducting a risk assessment report. The non-medical helicopters do not necessarily have to concern about this. In addition, the author has to offer the missing connection between medical-helicopters and non-medical helicopters. Otherwise, the author cannot compare that rate of accidents of two types of airlines. Most importantly, the actual number of accidents of both groups should also be given. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing, and fails to persuade the readers.
Quitter never wins. Winner never quits!
