- UID
- 533284
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-5-12
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
板凳
楼主 |
发表于 2010-5-19 00:54:12
|
只看该作者
In this argument, after the simple introduction of how this warning system works on the plane, the author concludes that the installation, of a type warning system on the commercial airplanes, can solve the problem of midair plane collision. There are a few key fallacies in the reasoning logic that severely weaken the author's argument.
Firstly, the author doesn't present an analysis on the dominant reason that causes midair plane collision. It is not convincing to present a solution to a problem while the root cause is not addressed at all. If the author can provide statistical data to show that a high percentage of such aircraft accidents are due to the unknown relative position between the airplanes, his argument would be much better substantiated.
Secondly, there is no proven causality between the installation of the warning system and the reduction of the collision. The author assumes that the system can work in the real environment as well as expected, without giving sound evidence. There is one example against this assumption. Although the system may function correctly to warn pilots of the possible collision, there might not be enough time left to adjust the course of the plane to effectively avoid the collision. Therefore, author should provide more evidence to rule out such possibilities.
Thirdly, in presented solution to midair plane collisions, it only covers commercial airliners. However, there is no evidence showing that such collisions only happen between commercial planes; therefore, the author commits a fallacy of gratuitous assumption.
In summary, the argument is not sound and convincing due to a few key issues. It is recommended to include the items discussed above so that the argument could be more persuasive and better substantiated. |
|