6分作文：

The argument that this warning system will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions omits some important concerns that be addressed to substantiate¹ the argument. The statement that follows the des cription of what this warning system will do simply describes the system and how it operates. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the warning system, and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.

 Most conspicuously², the argument does not address the cause of the problem of air plane collisions, the use of the system by pilots and flight specialists, or who is involved in the midair plane collisions. First, the argument assumes that the cause of the problem is that the planes’ courses, the likelihood of collisions, and actions to avoid collisions are unknown or inaccurate³. But if the cause of the problem of midair plane collisions is that pilots are not paying attention to their computer systems or flight operations, the warning system will not solve the collision problem. Second, the argument never addresses the interface⁴ between individuals and the system and how this will affect the warning system’s objective of obliterating⁵ the problem of collisions. If the pilot or flight specialist does not conform to what the warning system suggests, air collisions will not be avoided.

Finally, if planes other than commercial airliners⁶ are involved in the collisions, the problem of these collisions cannot be solved by a warning system that will not be installed on non-commercial airliners. The argument also does not address what would happen in the event that the warning system collapsed⁷, falls, or does not work properly. Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive⁸. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely⁹ explaining what the system supposedly does, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.