-
s.martinez.puppo
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 6:25 pm
Statement:
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."
Essay:
The argument that the problem of midair collisions will be solved by installing a computerized on board-warning systems in commercial airlines fails to acknowledge several key elements. The author of this argument states that by installing this warning system, planes can receive signals giving information about other plane´s course, so as to recommend evasive action when there is high probability of a collision. However, it fails to account important information regarding the obligatory nature of this solution and in which way will this system give the instructions to the pilots.
One of the most fundamentals flaws with this argument stems from a failure to specify if this system will be a compulsory requirement for all planes, not just, commercial airlines. The argument states that planes can receive signals from one another, yet the author does not mention if all planes will have the system installed in order to emit and receive the corresponding signals of a plane`s course. It is entirely possible that if a plane does not have the system, it will still collide with another one that has it. Had the argument clarify such data mentioning if this practice is actually a law, a stronger case for the solution to the problem would have been made.
Even if the argument persuasively featured the information whether the solution was going to be mandatory or not, several logical leaps would still be required for this argument to be considered sound. For example, the author does not mention in which way the recommendation of evasive action will be given. If both pilots are recommended to take some action because a collision is likely to occur given their plane´s course, they might end up choosing the same evasive action and still getting into a collision with each other. Furthermore, the author is assuming that pilots will follow the instructions no matter the circumstances. It may be the case that the plane might be running out of fuel and, so if a longer path is recommended, the pilot will not be likely to change its current course. So, information regarding the specific instructions of the system and the inputs that it must take into account so as to elaborate the correct instructions to each pilot should be stated for the argument to be more convincing.
As the argument stands, it does not read as either persuasive or cogent. Improvements specifying if the requirement of the system will be mandatory, addressing the way in which it functions and what inputs takes into account in order to give course of actions would certainly make this argument a better and more convincing piece.
433 words.
Thanks to all!
SofÃa
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."
Essay:
The argument that the problem of midair collisions will be solved by installing a computerized on board-warning systems in commercial airlines fails to acknowledge several key elements. The author of this argument states that by installing this warning system, planes can receive signals giving information about other plane´s course, so as to recommend evasive action when there is high probability of a collision. However, it fails to account important information regarding the obligatory nature of this solution and in which way will this system give the instructions to the pilots.
One of the most fundamentals flaws with this argument stems from a failure to specify if this system will be a compulsory requirement for all planes, not just, commercial airlines. The argument states that planes can receive signals from one another, yet the author does not mention if all planes will have the system installed in order to emit and receive the corresponding signals of a plane`s course. It is entirely possible that if a plane does not have the system, it will still collide with another one that has it. Had the argument clarify such data mentioning if this practice is actually a law, a stronger case for the solution to the problem would have been made.
Even if the argument persuasively featured the information whether the solution was going to be mandatory or not, several logical leaps would still be required for this argument to be considered sound. For example, the author does not mention in which way the recommendation of evasive action will be given. If both pilots are recommended to take some action because a collision is likely to occur given their plane´s course, they might end up choosing the same evasive action and still getting into a collision with each other. Furthermore, the author is assuming that pilots will follow the instructions no matter the circumstances. It may be the case that the plane might be running out of fuel and, so if a longer path is recommended, the pilot will not be likely to change its current course. So, information regarding the specific instructions of the system and the inputs that it must take into account so as to elaborate the correct instructions to each pilot should be stated for the argument to be more convincing.
As the argument stands, it does not read as either persuasive or cogent. Improvements specifying if the requirement of the system will be mandatory, addressing the way in which it functions and what inputs takes into account in order to give course of actions would certainly make this argument a better and more convincing piece.
433 words.
Thanks to all!
SofÃa
