GMAT Essays (AWA)

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.

xesh wrote: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.

Hi Xesh,

This gets a 3--it's a good start, but it is not a satisfactory essay.

You start strong, breaking down the argument and concluding that it isn't supported. And you start strong, pointing out that training isn't enough to judge qualifications. However, you don't actually explain why that is relevant, so you miss out on the credit for this point. You MUST explain why the point is connected to the argument--in this case, are young or inexperienced pilots more likely to be in medical helicopters? Less? Why might this be?

Then, you drop a major, SECOND point, in a single line. It's great that you mentioned helipads! That's flaw number 1! But it needed to be in it's own paragraph, supported by more explanation, not just in one sentence.

Finally, you miss the mark completely with paragraph 3. The number of helicopters is, in fact, entirely irrelevant here. "Rates," by definition, already take into account the number of commercial helicopters versus the number of medical helicopters. As a result, this paragraph was improperly reasoned.

Focus on the key points, and back them up with clear, examples. Stick to your structure, and you'll pull out a solid score!

Regards,