Q11 - Commercial passenger airplanes can be

[WaltGrace1983]

This is the strengthen portion of the question, so let's strengthen that argument!

System warms pilots to take evasive action during potential collision
→
Passengers are safer on airplanes equipped with System than on comparable airplanes without the System

***This is true even though the system frequently warns pilots to evade phantom airplanes

There are a few things to note about this argument:

(1) Notice how the conclusion has that little addendum..."even though the system frequently warns pilots to evade phantom airplanes..." While it wasn't that useful here, one way that we can strengthen this argument is to say that avoiding these phantom airplanes isn't more dangerous than not having a system at all.
(2) Notice how the conclusion is relative. What isn't the conclusion saying? The conclusion isn't saying something like, "the System makes these planes safe." Nope. It says that the "System makes these planes safer." We could definitely strengthen the conclusion with an absolute claim, something like, "the planes with the System are incredibly safe." However, for other question types especially, it is important to notice this distinction.
(3) Look for the gap! This is somewhat hinted at in my first point, the gap seems to be between taking evasive action and being safer. A good strengthener would be something along the lines of that these evasive actions are okay and that taking a phantom evasive action is safer than not taking evasive actions at all (or at least until its too late...)

(A) It seems that we get what we wanted right off the bat. This is a really good looking answer. It says that evasive action poses no risk. Wow! That is really strong for the strengthen answer choice! If it poses no risk then it seems that this system has no negative effects and potentially only benefits (BIG benefits - it might save your life).

(B) This doesn't really help to explain why the System would be safer then. If there is little danger to begin with, can we really conclude that the airplanes are safer? Not without making some big suppositions.

(C) This is almost an identical answer to (B). If these collisions aren't happening very often, how can we say that this System makes the plane safer?

(D) This might actually weaken the argument. 63% of these evasive actions are unfounded. Would this make the plane safer? It doesn't seem to be the case.

(E) We don't care about how the System is run! We care about the safety of it! Eliminate.

[OrlandoG178]

Hello,

I was stuck between A and D. I don't see how A is stronger. D in my view is stronger because there is evidence that 63% were not valid but the other 37% were. I don't care if it's 1% valid. The fact that it warns correctly 37% of the time to me is evident that this system is necessary and it's working. Maybe when the system warns even if it's faulty 63% of the time and the maneuver doesn't cause harm to passengers...I guess I can see how this is a better strengthener.

[AnnY551]

Hello,

"I was stuck between A and D. I don't see how A is stronger. D in my view is stronger because there is evidence that 63% were not valid but the other 37% were. I don't care if it's 1% valid. The fact that it warns correctly 37% of the time to me is evident that this system is necessary and it's working. Maybe when the system warns even if it's faulty 63% of the time and the maneuver doesn't cause harm to passengers...I guess I can see how this is a better strengthener."

Thanks for posting I'm not sure if someone can comment on this?

[Laura Damone]

Hi there! Since nobody has replied yet, I'll chime in!

Does D really tell us that 37% of the warnings are valid? I'm not buying it. It tells us that 63% are invalid, but the remaining 37% could be undetermined. That's the easiest way to get rid of D.

Regarding A, imagine if this were NOT true. What if the evasive action was risky in and of itself? If we were frequently taking dangerous evasive action to dodge planes that aren't really there, are we really safer on a plane with this system than we are on a plane without it? Not necessarily.

The trickiest strengthen questions have right answers that function like this: they strengthen the argument by neutralizing a potential weakener. We call these "defenders" because they defend the argument against a viable objection.

Hope this helps!