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.
The argument that this system will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that follows the description of what this warning system will do simply describes the system and how it operates. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the warning system, and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the cause of the problem of midair plane collisions, the use of the system by pilots and flight specialists, or who is involved in the midair plane collisions.
First, the argument assumes that the cause of the problem is that the planes’ courses, the likelihood of collisions, and actions to avoid collisions are unknown or inaccurate. In a weak attempt to support its claim, the argument describes a system that makes all of these things accurately known. But if the cause of the problem of midair plane collisions is that pilots are not paying attention to their computer systems or flight operations, the warning system will not solve the collision problem.
Second, the argument never addresses the interface between individuals and the system and how this will affect the warning system’s objective of obliterating the problem of collisions. If the pilot or flight specialist does not conform to what the warning system suggests, midair collisions will not be avoided.
Finally, if planes other than commercial airliners are involved in the collisions, the problem of these collisions cannot be solved by a warning system that will not be installed on non-commercial airlines. The argument also does not address what would happen in the event that the warning system collapses, fails, or does not work properly.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely explaining what the system supposedly does, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-10 | watashi110i | 69 | view |
- Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for goodhealth and that it is completely free of bacteria. Residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled,are hospitalized less frequently 50
- 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 69
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 334 350
No. of Characters: 1701 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.275 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.093 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.658 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 135 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.692 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.648 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.449 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.707 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, second, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1762.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 334.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2754491018 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82338345562 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.452095808383 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.5917024711 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.538461538 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6923076923 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.15384615385 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.377417946836 0.218282227539 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.161251583554 0.0743258471296 217% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105171030981 0.0701772020484 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.228226808473 0.128457276422 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0963882442923 0.0628817314937 153% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.