Dear all,

I just started to practice the AWA. Could you please provide some feedbacks on my essay. I did the sample question from OG2017. Thx for your time!

Prompt:
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 mid air 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.
 
Response:
In the argument, the author concludes that the computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in the commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. This argument omits several important issues that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. Most conspicuously, the author do not discuss how practical this device can be applied to solve the problem. Additionally, no convincing evidence is cited in the argument to demonstrate how good this system works. Furthermore, this argument never considers other reasons that cause the midair collision.

Firstly, the author bases the conclusion on that the signal of one plane's course, emitted from the transponder of this warning system, can be received by another plane to avoid collision. It implies that it will only work when the warning systems are installed on both of the airplanes on the potential conflicted course. Therefore, the non-commercial airplane without this system will be invisible in this case. The author assumes that all the midair collisions occur among commercial airplanes. Also, the author should take in consideration of other midair hazards, such as birds, that an airplane may crash into. Considering these listed concerns, this on-board warning system may not work as effectively as the author suggests.

Secondly, this statement mentions that this device can determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action based on the received signal. The author fails to illustrate its sensitivity to detect the forthcoming collision and the accuracy of its suggestions. For example, if this system is not sensitive to detect the fast-moving airplane on the conflicted course at a relatively great distance, the plane may not have enough time to react to the potential collision. Also, it is crucial whether the warning systems on both planes could accurately coordinate their recommendations to avoid the predicated collision.

Last but not last, the author assumes that the only cause to midair collision is due to the unavailability of knowing the likelihood of a collision and how to react. It is possible that devices to detect such likelihood have already available on the planes. Instead, the collision is resulted from the neglect of the pilots. If this is the case, the proposed system will not exert its proposed function to solve the problem.

As stated above, because this argument neglects several key issues, the argument is flawed. It could be strengthened if the author provided evidence on how sensitive and accurate this system works in the air. It would become more persuasive if the author concedes that this warning system can improve the situation regarding to the midair collision, rather than virtually solve the problem.