求助AAB5的思路，好心人指点！

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 non-medical helicopters or commercial airliners.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

1。统计数据问题，也许医疗直升机本身更吸引目光，而其他的很多事故未报道什么的。

2。也许事故发生率已经降低了，但仍高于其他行业，这不能说明guideline有问题。

3。也许是飞机太破或者运输医疗器械的内在风险导致的，就是说本身就容易出事故，这些不可避免的acc并不是guideline试图控制的。

The author of this
editorial concludes that the guidelines for training pilots and

maintaining equipment in the medical-helicopter industry are ineffective, even
though

they are far more stringent than those in other airline industries. To support
this

conclusion, the author cites statistics showing that the rate of
medical-helicopter

accidents is much higher than the rate of accidents for non-medical helicopters
or

commercial airliners. This argument is problematic in three critical respects.

      The first problem with the argument is that it
rests on the unstated assumption that

accidents involving medical helicopters have been due to inadequate pilot
training or

equipment maintenance. However, the author fails to acknowledge and rule out
other

possible causes of such accidents. In fact, common sense tells us that
medical-helicopter

accidents are most likely to result from the exigent circumstances and
dangerous flying

and landing conditions which typify medical emergencies where helicopters are

required to gain access to victims.

      A second, and related, problem is that the
author unfairly compares the accident

rate of medical helicopters with the accident rate for non-emergency aircraft.
Medical

helicopters are almost invariably deployed during emergencies to dangerous
flying

locales, whereas other types of aircraft are not. Consequently.
medical-helicopter

accidents will in all likelihood occur far more frequently than other aircraft
accidents,

regardless of pilot training or equipment maintenance.

      A third problem with the argument is that the
statistical evidence upon which it

relies is too vague to be informative. The statistics concerning aircraft
accidents may

have been based on all types of accidents, whether minor or major. The
statistics would

be more meaningful if we knew that the accidents to which they refer were all
of

comparable severity. For all we know, the rate of casualty-causing accidents
for medical

helicopters is actually lower than for other aircraft. Additionally, we are not
told the

time period of the survey. An old survey or one that covered only a brief time
period

would be poor evidence in support of the author's claim.

      In conclusion, the author's evidence does little
to support the conclusion. To be

persuasive, the author must at the very least acknowledge and rule out other
possible

causes of accidents that are unique to the medical-helicopter industry, in any
event, a

more effective argument would be based on a statistical comparison of accident
rates

under differing sets of training and maintenance guidelines within :he medical-

helicopter industry, not among different aircraft industries 75. The following
appeared as part of a recommendation from the business manager of a department
store.

1、尽管有严格的培训飞行员的guideline,有更好的设备，但是并不意味着medical helicopter去认真贯彻与执行。没有执行相关的guideline可能是导致crash的一个原因之一

2、就算是有严格的guideline，很有可能这个guideline是错误的

3、statistics:it is vague。啥时候，啥地方，谁做的统计？统计数字是否准确？如果这个统计是一个中学生统计的，肯定没有说服力。