Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions between airplanes using the airport and birds from the wildlife refuge is negligible. ██ ███ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████ █ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██████ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ █████
██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ████ █ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ █████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████████
The conservationist argues that there is only negligible risk to airplane passengers from collisions between airplanes and birds from the wildlife refuge. As evidence, she offers statistics: the refuge was established 10 years ago, and since then, there have only been 20 cases of planes damaged by collisions with birds. No passengers have been injured in these collisions.
The pilot counters the conservationist's claim using more specific statistics: nearly all of the 20 collisions have happened in the last two years, and the number of birds in the refuge has been increasing. Thus, the pilot concludes, the increasing number of collisions in recent years brings an increased risk that passenger injuries will occur in at least one collision.
The pilot counters the conservationist's claim. To do this, he offers statistics that provide a more detailed picture than those provided by the conservationist. While the numbers the conservationist provides suggest that collisions only occur about twice a year, the pilot points out that collisions have been occurring at a much higher rate in the last two years, which the pilot suggests is caused by the increasing bird population. Thus, the current risk of injury from collisions is actually much higher than what the conservationist suggests.
The pilot counters the conservationist ██
attempting to show ████ ███ █████████████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████████
This is correct. While the conservationist provides statistics for the last decade that suggest a fairly low rate of collisions, the pilot points out that the conservationist fails to mention that collisions are not evenly spread out throughout the decade. They have been occurring at a much higher rate in the last two years, suggesting a higher current risk of collisions, and of passenger injuries, than what the conservationist implies.
questioning the conservationist's ███████ ███ ████████ █ ███████ ██████████
The pilot does not address the conservationist’s motives. He focuses directly on the conservationist’s argument.
asserting that dangerous ██████████ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████
The pilot does not state a general principle about dangerous situations becoming more dangerous over time. The pilot addresses only one specific dangerous situation: the collisions between planes and birds from the wildlife refuge. Just because he suggests that as the number of collisions keeps increasing, the risk of passenger injuries will also increase, doesn't mean he thinks that in general, all dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous.
discrediting the moral █████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████████████ ████████ ██ █████
Neither the pilot nor the conservationist mentions any moral principles.
disputing the accuracy ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ███████████████
This is incorrect. The pilot does not deny the accuracy of the conservationist’s figures: he does not claim that the number of collisions in the last 10 years is different than what the conservationist says. Rather, the pilot shows that the evidence provided by the conservationist is misleading on its own, and provides more specific evidence to paint a more accurate picture.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic