Airline industry representatives have recently argued that flying is safer than driving, citing two separate studies. First, US statistics show that each year there are approximately 40,000 deaths in automobile accidents versus only approximately 200 in f

The writer of the argument concludes that based on the US statistics and some studies, flying is safer than driving since the number of deaths in car accidents is more in comparison with flight crashes. I would think that this conclusion cannot be accepted as it is in that it dismisses answering to some questions which are important to draw an accurate conclusion.

The first problem with the argument is that the author did not indicate the total drives and flies in a year. Assume that there were 5000 and 4000000 flights and drives respectively in a year; absolutely in this case the proportion of deaths in flight accidents is more that the proportion in automobile accidents. Therefore, according to the total numbers of drives and flies, the conclusion could strengthen or weaken as well, so the author should involve the total numbers to make a proper conclusion.

The second problem with the argument is that the author failed to determine that how having fewer accidents on the road by pilots indicates that they are safer and more attentive drivers in the air. Actually it is not clear enough that how the author translated these to notions into each other. In particular, if the author’s claim means that a pilot has fewer accidents in the air than an average car driver on the road in a same hour units, it would be more understandable; however, this interpretation is so far that the initial statement. In fact, the author ought to indicate his meaning of the safer pilot according to his or her performance on the road. Moreover, it is not clear that the how much the pilots who surveyed and created the notion that they are four times less than an average to have car accidents, used to use a personal car on the road. Probably the sample that this conclusion is based on, was not enough large to give an accurate result.

The third problematic issue about the argument is that this conclusion is made by airline industry representatives. I assume that it would be more reliable if it was made by a disinterested group. What I am trying to say is that with all respect, if automobile industry representatives wanted to release a report on differences between drives and flies, the result would be different. It is more prudent that an unbiased organization provides such a report. However, if the airline representatives showed their objectivity before, probably there is no need to worry about the impartiality of them.

Ultimately, while the presented hypothesis is interesting, I would think that according to the above explanations, it fails to answer to essential questions. The result of the research can only be accepted if the weaknesses already referred to are all removed, and the questions are answered accurately.