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...
THIS is my essay:
The computerized on-board warning system is considered to be the solution of midair plane collisions. This argument is extremely flawed as it stands on a questionable assumption. For instance, the argument assumed that the radio set can receive signals from anywhere, even the highest sky plane can be. Furthermore, it stands on no grounds that recommending evasive action can actually resolve the collision.
To assume that the transponder can receive signals no matter how high one plane is an assumption that cannot be made. There are some occations in which warning system cannot correspond with the airliners because the plane is too high to send and receive signal. If the warning system is designed for receiving signals in a very high place, the argument will be defendable.
Additionally, recommending an evasive action does not necessarily means that the collision will be avoided at once. Sometimes people are too panic to do just simple things to save themselves. Thus, there might be not enough time to get ready to do things advised by the device. This flaw can be fixed if all crew are trained and experienced in facing emergency situations. However, if the collisions are inevitable, even the most sophisticated evasive actions can only stem a devastated effect at best.
Overall, we need to question the ability of computerized on-board warning system on solving midair plane collisions. The assumption on the ability the transponder can get signals is not necessarily true, and so does recommending an evasive action.
----
Notes: I find pretty hard to write within 30 minutes. I wrote this essay in just 30 minutes, and I guess this essay isn't long enough. A good advice to improve my time management will be so helpful. Thanks!
"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...
THIS is my essay:
The computerized on-board warning system is considered to be the solution of midair plane collisions. This argument is extremely flawed as it stands on a questionable assumption. For instance, the argument assumed that the radio set can receive signals from anywhere, even the highest sky plane can be. Furthermore, it stands on no grounds that recommending evasive action can actually resolve the collision.
To assume that the transponder can receive signals no matter how high one plane is an assumption that cannot be made. There are some occations in which warning system cannot correspond with the airliners because the plane is too high to send and receive signal. If the warning system is designed for receiving signals in a very high place, the argument will be defendable.
Additionally, recommending an evasive action does not necessarily means that the collision will be avoided at once. Sometimes people are too panic to do just simple things to save themselves. Thus, there might be not enough time to get ready to do things advised by the device. This flaw can be fixed if all crew are trained and experienced in facing emergency situations. However, if the collisions are inevitable, even the most sophisticated evasive actions can only stem a devastated effect at best.
Overall, we need to question the ability of computerized on-board warning system on solving midair plane collisions. The assumption on the ability the transponder can get signals is not necessarily true, and so does recommending an evasive action.
----
Notes: I find pretty hard to write within 30 minutes. I wrote this essay in just 30 minutes, and I guess this essay isn't long enough. A good advice to improve my time management will be so helpful. Thanks!
