The following appeared in the editorial section of a West Cambria newspaper:
“A recent review of the West Cambria volunteer ambulance service revealed a longer average response time to
accidents than was reported by a commercial ambulance squad located in East Cambria. In order to provide better
patient care for accident victims and to raise revenue for our town by collecting service fees for ambulance use, we
should disband our volunteer service and hire a commercial ambulance service.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument above states that disbanding the volunteer ambulance force will serve two purposes. First, the author suggests that doing so will increase the city’s revenue. Second, the author states that charging service fees and using a commercial service will improve patient care for accident victims.
As evidence the author states that in a recent review of the West Cambria volunteer ambulance service it was revealed that the average response time to accidents was longer than in East Cambria, served by a commercial ambulance service.
The argument relies on several dubious assumptions. First of all, the author does not mention how material was the difference in the response times between the commercial and the volunteer ambulance forces. An average difference does not itself indicate a statistically significant result. If the difference in the response times was within the margin of error, it is hardly an evidence of a higher or lower standard of quality.
Next, the author makes a connection between the fees collected by the municipality of Cambria for the ambulance service, and revenues of the municipality. No evidence is given in support of this claim. The additional fees in fact may not be enough to cover the additional commercial ambulance services.
The author then commits a logical fallacy by implying that reduced response times are directly related to the quality of patient care. No such connection is evident. The raw response time should not be the goal of any emergency service. It is the final outcome of the incident is what is important in evaluating the medical service. If an ambulance is fast to the accident site, but carries unqualified paramedics, it is hardly preferable to a slightly slower service with more qualified personnel, who can provide adequate care at the site and on the way to the hospital.
The argument could have been stronger if the author cited specific figures related to the response times. The statistics showing the comparison of final outcomes of the ambulance calls also could have helped make a better case. Finally, financial figures showing the comparison of the impact of the additional service fees and expenses associated with the commercial service, would have made the argument stronger.
In summary, the argument above is weak because lacks in factual support, relies on unsupported assumptions, and is logically flawed.
“A recent review of the West Cambria volunteer ambulance service revealed a longer average response time to
accidents than was reported by a commercial ambulance squad located in East Cambria. In order to provide better
patient care for accident victims and to raise revenue for our town by collecting service fees for ambulance use, we
should disband our volunteer service and hire a commercial ambulance service.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument above states that disbanding the volunteer ambulance force will serve two purposes. First, the author suggests that doing so will increase the city’s revenue. Second, the author states that charging service fees and using a commercial service will improve patient care for accident victims.
As evidence the author states that in a recent review of the West Cambria volunteer ambulance service it was revealed that the average response time to accidents was longer than in East Cambria, served by a commercial ambulance service.
The argument relies on several dubious assumptions. First of all, the author does not mention how material was the difference in the response times between the commercial and the volunteer ambulance forces. An average difference does not itself indicate a statistically significant result. If the difference in the response times was within the margin of error, it is hardly an evidence of a higher or lower standard of quality.
Next, the author makes a connection between the fees collected by the municipality of Cambria for the ambulance service, and revenues of the municipality. No evidence is given in support of this claim. The additional fees in fact may not be enough to cover the additional commercial ambulance services.
The author then commits a logical fallacy by implying that reduced response times are directly related to the quality of patient care. No such connection is evident. The raw response time should not be the goal of any emergency service. It is the final outcome of the incident is what is important in evaluating the medical service. If an ambulance is fast to the accident site, but carries unqualified paramedics, it is hardly preferable to a slightly slower service with more qualified personnel, who can provide adequate care at the site and on the way to the hospital.
The argument could have been stronger if the author cited specific figures related to the response times. The statistics showing the comparison of final outcomes of the ambulance calls also could have helped make a better case. Finally, financial figures showing the comparison of the impact of the additional service fees and expenses associated with the commercial service, would have made the argument stronger.
In summary, the argument above is weak because lacks in factual support, relies on unsupported assumptions, and is logically flawed.
