"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...]
The stated argument seeks to prove that an on-board warning system will virtually eradicate all instances of mid-air collisions. This argument is fundamentally flawed in that a single piece of proprietary technology cannot completely eradicate a long-standing problem with commercial aviation, especially without undergoing a testing phase. Most importantly, this article does not present a compelling logical argument because it fails to provide sufficient evidence to support its initial claim.
First off, the technology is limited in its scope as it is only able to detect other aircraft with the same technology, namely commercial aircraft. This limitation is tied to implementation difficulties associated with the technology. Unless every aircraft manufacturer adopts this feature, the system will only detect select aircraft. Furthermore, unless the system can be built into existing aircraft, the technology will also exclude a number of aircraft by simple virtue of the fact that they cannot be altered, but are nonetheless still in use. This flaw could be fixed by developing a method to install the system across all aircraft, by developing it as a standardization in aviation and accommodating existing or non-commercial aircraft.
The technology is highly dependant on the ability of the pilot to see the warning, understand the warning, and have an appropriate plan of action to deal with the threat. If these three elements are not present, the system itself has little use as it is highly dependant on human limitations. The pilot must also be responsive in that there must be someone available to keep an eye on the system at all times. Therefore, in order for the system to work, adequate training must be put in place so pilots are able to interpret the technology and develop an action plan based off of its signals.
The argument claims that the warning system is able to recommend evasive action. This claim supports the argument by taking a logical leap - since the technology is only aware of an aircraft's position relative to another aircraft, it is not possible that is has the necessary data to provide a recommendation for next steps. For example, if the system picks up an aircraft in a plane's path, it cannot be aware of other constraints in terms of where to direct the plane, ie. altitude clearance, speed of aircraft, etc. These limitations suggest that the system must be capable of registering more data before it can provide a trustworthy recommendation for a plan of action.
Lastly, the argument is built on the assumption that the technology, despite not being tested, will work at 100% accuracy once implemented. False positives could be disastrous, as planes veering off-course for no apparent reason could alarm staff at air control centres, as well as passengers. False negatives, on the other hand, could be fatal, as pilots might put complete trust in the system, and end up colliding with another aircraft. In order to resolve such issues, a pilot phase must be used to verify the accuracy of the technology before installing it in commercial aircraft.
In summary, the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to convince readers that the proprietary warning technology will solve the problem of aircraft collisions. The argument can be strengthened by further examining implications behind implementation, human limitations, viable plans of action, and the accuracy of the technology. Only then, will the claims listed serve a compelling argument for the use of warning technology in passenger aircraft.
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...]
The stated argument seeks to prove that an on-board warning system will virtually eradicate all instances of mid-air collisions. This argument is fundamentally flawed in that a single piece of proprietary technology cannot completely eradicate a long-standing problem with commercial aviation, especially without undergoing a testing phase. Most importantly, this article does not present a compelling logical argument because it fails to provide sufficient evidence to support its initial claim.
First off, the technology is limited in its scope as it is only able to detect other aircraft with the same technology, namely commercial aircraft. This limitation is tied to implementation difficulties associated with the technology. Unless every aircraft manufacturer adopts this feature, the system will only detect select aircraft. Furthermore, unless the system can be built into existing aircraft, the technology will also exclude a number of aircraft by simple virtue of the fact that they cannot be altered, but are nonetheless still in use. This flaw could be fixed by developing a method to install the system across all aircraft, by developing it as a standardization in aviation and accommodating existing or non-commercial aircraft.
The technology is highly dependant on the ability of the pilot to see the warning, understand the warning, and have an appropriate plan of action to deal with the threat. If these three elements are not present, the system itself has little use as it is highly dependant on human limitations. The pilot must also be responsive in that there must be someone available to keep an eye on the system at all times. Therefore, in order for the system to work, adequate training must be put in place so pilots are able to interpret the technology and develop an action plan based off of its signals.
The argument claims that the warning system is able to recommend evasive action. This claim supports the argument by taking a logical leap - since the technology is only aware of an aircraft's position relative to another aircraft, it is not possible that is has the necessary data to provide a recommendation for next steps. For example, if the system picks up an aircraft in a plane's path, it cannot be aware of other constraints in terms of where to direct the plane, ie. altitude clearance, speed of aircraft, etc. These limitations suggest that the system must be capable of registering more data before it can provide a trustworthy recommendation for a plan of action.
Lastly, the argument is built on the assumption that the technology, despite not being tested, will work at 100% accuracy once implemented. False positives could be disastrous, as planes veering off-course for no apparent reason could alarm staff at air control centres, as well as passengers. False negatives, on the other hand, could be fatal, as pilots might put complete trust in the system, and end up colliding with another aircraft. In order to resolve such issues, a pilot phase must be used to verify the accuracy of the technology before installing it in commercial aircraft.
In summary, the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to convince readers that the proprietary warning technology will solve the problem of aircraft collisions. The argument can be strengthened by further examining implications behind implementation, human limitations, viable plans of action, and the accuracy of the technology. Only then, will the claims listed serve a compelling argument for the use of warning technology in passenger aircraft.
