- UID
- 514695
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-3-1
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
dear all,从Argument开始准备，这是我写的第一篇作文。有参考模板的写法，大家指点下吧。多谢！
题目就是Official Guide上面的example，题号94：
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper: “The computerized onboard 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.”
In this argument, the author claims that midair planecollisions will be virtually avoided if commercial airliners are installed withon-board warning system. To support his statement, the author explains themechanism of how on-board warning system functions to help avoid midair planecollisions. First, it can receive from another plane the radio set whichsignals a plane's course. Second, the warning system, based on the radio setreceived, is able to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasiveaction. At first glance, the author's argument appears to be somehow appealing,while a close examination reveals how groundless it is. This argument isproblematic for the following reasons.
The first and also the most glaring logical fallacy committedby the author is that he applies the rationale supporting one particularinstance to a general case. While he describes the situation of havingcommercial airliners installed with on-board warning system, the author assertsthat almost all midair plane collision will be avoided. Commercial airlinersand planes are two different concepts, the former being a part of the latter.The existence of other non-commercial airliners such as military jets orprivate planes may collide with the well-equipped commercial airliners.Therefore, the author's argument does not stand up, owing to the undefinedsubject scope, commercial airliners versus planes.
Second, the author commits the fallacy of causal oversimplification.Since the causes of plane collision are not clearly analyzed, the author shouldnot conclude that the warning system can actually solve the problem. Anairplane collision can be caused by various reasons, such as radar failure andpilot's operation mistake. Admittedly, the warning system may help improveflying safety as the other on-board information systems do, but it does noteliminate the risk of pilot’s cruising error. It is possible that a pilot mayignore the warnings from the system, misread the system information, or in aworse scenario not activate the warning system at all. We do not have to go farto see this second loophole in the argument; the author tries to solve thecomplex problem by considering only part of the factors contributing to it.
In addition, the author overlooks the external factors thatmay lead to a midair collision, as he only takes into account the action of theplane which receives the signal. It is a common sense that to avoid a collisioncalls for the collaboration between two pilots. Unless the author is able togive strong evidence on how two or multiple airplanes interact with each otherwith the help of the warning system to avoid collision, his statement is notconvincing at all. Plus, other external factors that may cause a collision likesudden weather change are also being ignored.
To sum up, the statement explained in this argument lackscredibility because the evidence cited in his analysis does not lend strongsupport to what the author claims. To make the argument more persuasive, thearguer would first have to fix the subject scope of the discussion. He wouldalso need to analyze the causes of the issue before trying to provide thesolution to it. Besides the internal factor he takes into account, he shouldexamine the external factors as well as the other internal factors beforereaching the conclusion. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-3-14 12:18:22
收藏
收藏
