-
voodoo_child
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
===================================================================================================
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper.
"The computerized onboard 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."
-----------------------
The argument states that the new on-board warning system that will be installed in planes will help the plane to detect the possibility of mid-air collision. The argument goes too far to say that the problem will be solved. The argument states that transponders, an electronic device, will be used to detect the possibility of collision, and it will also prescribe the best option to prevent the accident. The argument assumes quite a few things related to electronic processing and timings. The argument, as stated, doesn't hold water. Let's see why.
Firstly, the airlines today already have sophisticated anti-collision devices installed. E.g. Boeing 747 has sophisticated electronics to send signals and receive signals from the basestations. The argument doesn't explicitly mention in what way is the new transporder better than the existing electronic circuitry. The argument should provide the benefits and shortcomings of the contemporary systems. For instance, the argument could have elaborated that the processing speed in contemporary electronic circuits is not fast enough to prevent the collision within the radius of 5 miles. In this way, the argument could be much more realistic and convincing.
Secondly, the argument fails to provide any specifications of transponders. Every electronic equipment manufactured in the world ought to provide specifications so that the user can know the input and output operating variables. Planes operate at such an altitude that specifications of electronic equipments will vary depending upon the requirements. Inter-satellite communications happen at high-frequencies, while intra-plane communications happen at Wi-fi frequencies. Hence, the argument could be improved by providing electronic specifications with reference to altitude of the plane and minimum distance required to prevent mid-air collision.
Thirdly, in contemporary systems, the bulk of such processing to prevent mid-air collision happens at groundstations because they can monitor not just a few flights but all the flights flying within radar's range. The groundstations also keep track of non-commercial flights. We need to note that mid-air collisions happen not only because of commercial planes but also because of non-commercial planes. Different types of planes have a different limit on the altitude that they can fly. Hence, the argument fails to demonstrate that the new transponder will be able to detect mid-air collision with flights that don't have this transponder installed. One way to correct this discrepancy would be to provide some statistical analysis using sample test data for different types of planes, commerical and non-commercial, and for different altitudes. Hence, the argument as stated needs to be improved.
Lastly, we know that a majority of times the mid-air collision happens when the plane is either landing or taking off. The obvious reason is an error with timing. In old days, the electronic circuit was not sophisticated enough to detect and take effective decisions within milliseconds range, there have been a lot "Patna mid-air collisions", wherein the the two planes had an head-on collision. However, today, such accidents are rarely heard of. The contemporary systems have really improved in terms of precision and accuracy. It will be not only difficult to match the ratings of current systems but also difficult to implement them. Obviously, no one should waste time trying to reinvent the wheel. Hence, the argument needs to justify the clear need of the transponder. The argument definitely needs improvement. For instance, the argument could state that the probability of mid-air collision increases when the plane is in auto-pilot mode i.e. when there is no manual control. Such examples will make the argument really convincing and strong.
Lastly, the argument fails to highlight whether the transponder will be compatible with different manufacturers of commercial planes - Airbus or Boeing. Generally, every company follows the international guidelines, but it wouldn't hurt to specify the compatibility. Hence, the argument, as stated, is not good because of above mentioned reasons and can be strengthened by fixing deficiencies mentioned above.
===========================================================================================================
#2
"People often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes both natural and human resources. What they fail to see, however, is that such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand."
Which do you find more compelling: the complaint about products that do not last or the response to it? Explain your position using relevant reasons and/or examples drawn from your own experience, observations, or reading.
-------------
The issue states that people complain about products that don't last too long. Moreover, such products waste human and natural resources in terms of their effective utilization over a period of time. The issue concludes that by not manufacturing a product that can last long, the costs are kept in control. In my opinion, the issue is well stated and fairly reasoned due to a number of reasons. Let's see them why.
Firstly, nothing lasts forever. Technology used in the cars 50 years ago is no longer used today. It's not that no one wants the technology but that people prefer to make lives easier. It's difficult to maintain old products because the demand for their parts go down. My dad recently sold off his 50 year old bike. The maintenance cost of the bike was more than the maintenance of two cars! Hence, it's not that every product can be designed to last long or that every product can last long but that the products have a limit on the numbers of years they can operate. Today, I cannot use my 12 year old laptop to run fairly complex Excel macros. It's not that all the effort spent behind manufacturing that product is wasted but that the laptop can no longer satisfy the current demands. In my opinion, the issue is well reasoned.
Secondly, if we look at from "green" perspective, there are a few products that can last long, but they are not at all desirable. For instance, plastic bags used today have created a major havoc. It is really difficult to recycle or dispose them. Consequently, such products not only harm the ecosystem but also prevent us from developing better products. Fortunately, a lot of major shopping companies have started using "recyclable" plastics that don't last long but can be easily disintegrated and disposed off. Hence, in my opinion, sometimes it's better to manufacture a product that doesn't last long.
Thirdly, if we look at from the economic standpoint, we get what we pay for. It's not that just because a product doesn't last long, all natural and human resources are wasted but that we get a chance to try a new product. For instance, in a developing country like India and a few European countries, noone would buy an ever-lasting but expensive product. It's not because people don't want to buy, but because they cannot afford it. By manufacturing products, some of them of inferior quality, industries keep costs under control. Sometimes, the product doesn't require bullet-proof quality. Telephones manufactured during cold-war days were made such that the telephone would not get disrupted when there is a nuclear attack. The devices were so rugged that one can actually throw them from the third floor without worrying about the damage. Do we need such devices? How many people need such army-grade secure and bullet-proof devices? Not many. Hence, sometimes it really helps the industries and the overall world economy to manufacture products of a good quality, not necessarily the best quality, that can meet consumer's demand. One should not consider that a wastage of resources but effective utilization of resources to boost the overall world economy.
Lastly, in my opinion, the issue, as stated, is fairly convincing and does hold water. The issue at hand provides a great opportunity to effectively manufacture products that can boost American ecnonomy especially during these days of debt crisis. Not every time one has to worry about the longevity of the products. Swami Vivekanand has rightly said, "every thing must die." I am fairly convinced with the overall conclusion.
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper.
"The computerized onboard 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."
-----------------------
The argument states that the new on-board warning system that will be installed in planes will help the plane to detect the possibility of mid-air collision. The argument goes too far to say that the problem will be solved. The argument states that transponders, an electronic device, will be used to detect the possibility of collision, and it will also prescribe the best option to prevent the accident. The argument assumes quite a few things related to electronic processing and timings. The argument, as stated, doesn't hold water. Let's see why.
Firstly, the airlines today already have sophisticated anti-collision devices installed. E.g. Boeing 747 has sophisticated electronics to send signals and receive signals from the basestations. The argument doesn't explicitly mention in what way is the new transporder better than the existing electronic circuitry. The argument should provide the benefits and shortcomings of the contemporary systems. For instance, the argument could have elaborated that the processing speed in contemporary electronic circuits is not fast enough to prevent the collision within the radius of 5 miles. In this way, the argument could be much more realistic and convincing.
Secondly, the argument fails to provide any specifications of transponders. Every electronic equipment manufactured in the world ought to provide specifications so that the user can know the input and output operating variables. Planes operate at such an altitude that specifications of electronic equipments will vary depending upon the requirements. Inter-satellite communications happen at high-frequencies, while intra-plane communications happen at Wi-fi frequencies. Hence, the argument could be improved by providing electronic specifications with reference to altitude of the plane and minimum distance required to prevent mid-air collision.
Thirdly, in contemporary systems, the bulk of such processing to prevent mid-air collision happens at groundstations because they can monitor not just a few flights but all the flights flying within radar's range. The groundstations also keep track of non-commercial flights. We need to note that mid-air collisions happen not only because of commercial planes but also because of non-commercial planes. Different types of planes have a different limit on the altitude that they can fly. Hence, the argument fails to demonstrate that the new transponder will be able to detect mid-air collision with flights that don't have this transponder installed. One way to correct this discrepancy would be to provide some statistical analysis using sample test data for different types of planes, commerical and non-commercial, and for different altitudes. Hence, the argument as stated needs to be improved.
Lastly, we know that a majority of times the mid-air collision happens when the plane is either landing or taking off. The obvious reason is an error with timing. In old days, the electronic circuit was not sophisticated enough to detect and take effective decisions within milliseconds range, there have been a lot "Patna mid-air collisions", wherein the the two planes had an head-on collision. However, today, such accidents are rarely heard of. The contemporary systems have really improved in terms of precision and accuracy. It will be not only difficult to match the ratings of current systems but also difficult to implement them. Obviously, no one should waste time trying to reinvent the wheel. Hence, the argument needs to justify the clear need of the transponder. The argument definitely needs improvement. For instance, the argument could state that the probability of mid-air collision increases when the plane is in auto-pilot mode i.e. when there is no manual control. Such examples will make the argument really convincing and strong.
Lastly, the argument fails to highlight whether the transponder will be compatible with different manufacturers of commercial planes - Airbus or Boeing. Generally, every company follows the international guidelines, but it wouldn't hurt to specify the compatibility. Hence, the argument, as stated, is not good because of above mentioned reasons and can be strengthened by fixing deficiencies mentioned above.
===========================================================================================================
#2
"People often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes both natural and human resources. What they fail to see, however, is that such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand."
Which do you find more compelling: the complaint about products that do not last or the response to it? Explain your position using relevant reasons and/or examples drawn from your own experience, observations, or reading.
-------------
The issue states that people complain about products that don't last too long. Moreover, such products waste human and natural resources in terms of their effective utilization over a period of time. The issue concludes that by not manufacturing a product that can last long, the costs are kept in control. In my opinion, the issue is well stated and fairly reasoned due to a number of reasons. Let's see them why.
Firstly, nothing lasts forever. Technology used in the cars 50 years ago is no longer used today. It's not that no one wants the technology but that people prefer to make lives easier. It's difficult to maintain old products because the demand for their parts go down. My dad recently sold off his 50 year old bike. The maintenance cost of the bike was more than the maintenance of two cars! Hence, it's not that every product can be designed to last long or that every product can last long but that the products have a limit on the numbers of years they can operate. Today, I cannot use my 12 year old laptop to run fairly complex Excel macros. It's not that all the effort spent behind manufacturing that product is wasted but that the laptop can no longer satisfy the current demands. In my opinion, the issue is well reasoned.
Secondly, if we look at from "green" perspective, there are a few products that can last long, but they are not at all desirable. For instance, plastic bags used today have created a major havoc. It is really difficult to recycle or dispose them. Consequently, such products not only harm the ecosystem but also prevent us from developing better products. Fortunately, a lot of major shopping companies have started using "recyclable" plastics that don't last long but can be easily disintegrated and disposed off. Hence, in my opinion, sometimes it's better to manufacture a product that doesn't last long.
Thirdly, if we look at from the economic standpoint, we get what we pay for. It's not that just because a product doesn't last long, all natural and human resources are wasted but that we get a chance to try a new product. For instance, in a developing country like India and a few European countries, noone would buy an ever-lasting but expensive product. It's not because people don't want to buy, but because they cannot afford it. By manufacturing products, some of them of inferior quality, industries keep costs under control. Sometimes, the product doesn't require bullet-proof quality. Telephones manufactured during cold-war days were made such that the telephone would not get disrupted when there is a nuclear attack. The devices were so rugged that one can actually throw them from the third floor without worrying about the damage. Do we need such devices? How many people need such army-grade secure and bullet-proof devices? Not many. Hence, sometimes it really helps the industries and the overall world economy to manufacture products of a good quality, not necessarily the best quality, that can meet consumer's demand. One should not consider that a wastage of resources but effective utilization of resources to boost the overall world economy.
Lastly, in my opinion, the issue, as stated, is fairly convincing and does hold water. The issue at hand provides a great opportunity to effectively manufacture products that can boost American ecnonomy especially during these days of debt crisis. Not every time one has to worry about the longevity of the products. Swami Vivekanand has rightly said, "every thing must die." I am fairly convinced with the overall conclusion.
