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 nonmedical helicopters or commercialairliners."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the argument at hand the editor cites a recent medical helicopter crash and some unwarranted assumptions to conclude that medical helicopters are more vulnerable to accidents than nonmedical helicopter or commercial helicopters. The editor's argument lacks proper reasoning and should be supported by more statistics.
Firstly, the editor compares the stringent guidelines for training pilots and maintaining equipment of medical airline industry with those of other airline industries. Although,this seems to be a valid comparison but there are many more reasons that can govern the course accidents. Age and flying expeirence of pilots can also be a major reason for such accidents. Moreover, most of the medical helicopters have to land in areas where proper helipad is not present, this makes them even more vulnerable to accidents. The editor should also compare other logical areas before landing to a conclusion.
Secondly, the editor's statement that compares greater rate of accidents in medical helicopter industry with the lesser rate in non medical or commercial airline industry is not very well reasoned. It is very well possible that the number of helicopters that the medical industry operates is much larger that the number other industries operate. So, a comparison on the rate of accident is not justified.
In conclusion the editor can strengthen his statement if he supports his argument by valid comparisons or states additional facts.
"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 nonmedical helicopters or commercialairliners."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the argument at hand the editor cites a recent medical helicopter crash and some unwarranted assumptions to conclude that medical helicopters are more vulnerable to accidents than nonmedical helicopter or commercial helicopters. The editor's argument lacks proper reasoning and should be supported by more statistics.
Firstly, the editor compares the stringent guidelines for training pilots and maintaining equipment of medical airline industry with those of other airline industries. Although,this seems to be a valid comparison but there are many more reasons that can govern the course accidents. Age and flying expeirence of pilots can also be a major reason for such accidents. Moreover, most of the medical helicopters have to land in areas where proper helipad is not present, this makes them even more vulnerable to accidents. The editor should also compare other logical areas before landing to a conclusion.
Secondly, the editor's statement that compares greater rate of accidents in medical helicopter industry with the lesser rate in non medical or commercial airline industry is not very well reasoned. It is very well possible that the number of helicopters that the medical industry operates is much larger that the number other industries operate. So, a comparison on the rate of accident is not justified.
In conclusion the editor can strengthen his statement if he supports his argument by valid comparisons or states additional facts.
