4 ms·
He's saying the title is ambiguous. If the author is suggesting the A310's design is indeed a culprit, then the argument is weak. If the author is reinforcing
by luckyland 17y ago
He's saying the title is ambiguous.
If the author is suggesting the A310's design is indeed a culprit, then the argument is weak.
If the author is reinforcing the argument that the A310's design is not likely to be a factor in the crash, then the title could be misleading.
- Tamerlin 17y ago"Airbus's design is an UNlikely culprit for the Yemenia crash near the Comoros" "If the author is reinforcing the argument that the A310's design is not likely to be a factor in the crash, then the title could be misleading." The title implies exactly that, so what's misleading about it?