Argument
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 reportedly 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.
The above presented editorial section articulates that West Cambria volunteer service took longer time in reaching the patients. Thus, he suggests that volunteer service should be discontinued and commercial ambulance service should be started. That would enable better care, prompt actions with respect to accident victims, and generate more revenues through service fees. I believe that the argument falls out, as there are many blatant facts that have been ignored.
Firstly, we have not been provided with the information on the number of accidents and the ambulance services availed by the residents. He fails to mention the turn-around time difference between East Cambria and West Cambria ambulance service, because if the time difference in marginal, there is no point disbanding the volunteer service. Further, the change would not help if there were a sharp decrease in number of accidents and hospitalization. Secondly, it is not a logical assumption that incase the commercial ambulance has fast service system, it will provide better patient care for accident victims because an ambulance service having inexperienced paramedics along with them would be futile at any mishap scene. The author's recommendation depends upon the faulty assumption that response time to an accident is the only factor that influences patient care. Other pertinent factors like ambulance crew proficiency, emergency equipments, and well-trained professionals should be considered. Thirdly, mobilizing commercial ambulance services and charging service fees is not a right way to raise revenues. I feel that to raise the revenues, disbanding volunteer service would be a biased decision.
The argument would have been strong if the author cited specific figures and analysis of past accidents and the delay in time. Further, he could have provided us with the evidence that proves that there was a derailed volunteer ambulance service. In summary, the argument above is weak because lacks in factual support and relies on unsupported assumptions.
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 reportedly 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.
The above presented editorial section articulates that West Cambria volunteer service took longer time in reaching the patients. Thus, he suggests that volunteer service should be discontinued and commercial ambulance service should be started. That would enable better care, prompt actions with respect to accident victims, and generate more revenues through service fees. I believe that the argument falls out, as there are many blatant facts that have been ignored.
Firstly, we have not been provided with the information on the number of accidents and the ambulance services availed by the residents. He fails to mention the turn-around time difference between East Cambria and West Cambria ambulance service, because if the time difference in marginal, there is no point disbanding the volunteer service. Further, the change would not help if there were a sharp decrease in number of accidents and hospitalization. Secondly, it is not a logical assumption that incase the commercial ambulance has fast service system, it will provide better patient care for accident victims because an ambulance service having inexperienced paramedics along with them would be futile at any mishap scene. The author's recommendation depends upon the faulty assumption that response time to an accident is the only factor that influences patient care. Other pertinent factors like ambulance crew proficiency, emergency equipments, and well-trained professionals should be considered. Thirdly, mobilizing commercial ambulance services and charging service fees is not a right way to raise revenues. I feel that to raise the revenues, disbanding volunteer service would be a biased decision.
The argument would have been strong if the author cited specific figures and analysis of past accidents and the delay in time. Further, he could have provided us with the evidence that proves that there was a derailed volunteer ambulance service. In summary, the argument above is weak because lacks in factual support and relies on unsupported assumptions.
