Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions between airplanes using the airport and birds from the wildlife refuge is negligible. ██ ███ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████ █ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██████ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ █████
██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ████ █ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ █████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████████
In response to the conservationist’s claim that the wildlife refuge poses no safety risk, the pilot counters by pointing out 17 of the 20 collisions that occurred in the 10 years since the refuge was established happened within the last 2 years. Moreover, the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. The more collisions between birds and airplanes, the greater likelihood at least one collision will result in passenger injuries.
The pilot counters the position held by the conservationist. She does this by showing that the conservationist’s statements about the number of collisions between birds and planes is misleading. 20 total collisions spread out over 10 years implies a lower risk compared to 17 collisions in only 2 years. Therefore, it can’t be true that the refuge poses absolutely no safety risk.
The pilot counters the conservationist ██
attempting to show ████ ███ █████████████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████████
questioning the conservationist's ███████ ███ ████████ █ ███████ ██████████
asserting that dangerous ██████████ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████
discrediting the moral █████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████████████ ████████ ██ █████
disputing the accuracy ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ███████████████