GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文十一

　　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.