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
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 authors claim.
In conclusion, the authors 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.
下一篇: GMAT新黄金80题及范文(十六)
吸烟不容易得新冠肺炎?这项研究引发了法国的尼古丁禁令
春夜洛城闻笛
走进古诗中的雨
背起行囊走四方
漫谈诗词中的雪与花
国际英语资讯:Feature: Coronavirus is changing the way Italian winemakers operate
古诗中的秋
国际英语资讯:European tourism needs 375 bln euros to recover: ETC
斯科拉里:巴西一只手已经触碰到了冠军奖杯
国际英语资讯:Some 100 people arrested a day in London for domestic violence during coronavirus lockdown
国际英语资讯:Yemens southern council captures all key state institutions in Aden
在古诗中沉醉
巴西世界杯教给我们的十件事
古诗中的四季
沭阳地方农谚《九九歌》评析
古诗中的思乡
江上明珠——石宝寨
国际英语资讯:COVID-19 infections reach 197,675 in Italy, single-day deaths lowest in six weeks
研究:新冠病毒或借助大气污染物颗粒传播
国内英语资讯:Chinas Chongqing donates 150,000 medical masks to Singapore