GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文十一

会计考友

71.        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
) |( t  u/ Q: o& q; a& w0 Yaccidents is much higher than the rate of accidents for non-medical helicopters or
0 |9 d) q6 x( _; }% e7 Ocommercial 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
3 t  s2 Z( R( C% Q5 r- U# h4 [equipment maintenance. However, the author fails to acknowledge and rule out other
( c& k9 b& O' l$ J/ V% epossible 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
* _1 h; Y. _! ^# W2 M- _and landing conditions which typify medical emergencies where helicopters are
required to gain access to victims.
" ~; @& M' N7 q! k) e' l( `3 E# g      A second, and related, problem is that the author unfairly compares the accident
4 P. w% {5 }# o$ u9 B0 e4 ?- erate 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.
. f/ o2 R8 ~4 G6 E- q$ o: h      A third problem with the argument is that the statistical evidence upon which it
3 Q- G- g4 [. ~( ^) nrelies 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
+ |- e0 x7 E# D* {" e% q+ J  r4 bwould be poor evidence in support of the author's claim.
& S" ~/ j6 B$ L0 C- y- G      In conclusion, the author's evidence does little to support the conclusion. To be
$ G- _% O5 t/ c7 P5 L/ n1 Gpersuasive, the author must at the very least acknowledge and rule out other possible
) P* z/ L$ w& k$ j+ j  Hcauses 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-
# n: X) M: s1 z2 h9 ihelicopter industry, not among different aircraft industries.