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

【GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文十一】相关文章：

★ GMAT作文：Argument范文精选（60）

★ GMAT作文范文精选（20）

★ GMAT写作：Issue优秀作文精选（14）

★ GMAT写作必备句型汇总31（带译文）

★ 精选GMAT写作范文50篇（3）

★ GMAT写作练习：Argument（1）

★ 精选GMAT写作范文50篇（18）

★ 浅谈GMAT写作Argument部分的让步式攻击体系

★ GMAT写作范文精选：Argument例文(21)

★ 精选GMAT写作范文50篇（32）