THE ARGUMENT:
The following appeared in an article in the health section of a newspaper:
"There is a common misconception that university hospitals are better than community or private hospitals. This
notion is unfounded, however: the university hospitals in our region employ 15 percent fewer doctors, have a 20
percent lower success rate in treating patients, make far less overall profit, and pay their medical staff considerably
less than do private hospitals. Furthermore, many doctors at university hospitals typically divide their time among
teaching, conducting research, and treating patients. From this it seems clear that the quality of care at university
hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
ANSWER:
The argument claims that the misconception of university hospitals is better than community/private as unfounded. However, there are serious flaws in the evidence provided by the author to prove this misconception wrong.
First of all, The example provided brings up the happenings in a particular hospital/region. It is not necessary that it applies universally to all hospitals. The stated example claims that the particular hospital has 15% fewer doctors. When it comes to treating the patients, the quality of doctors matters more than the quantity. By quality, things such as the amount of experience the doctors has, the numbers of patients each doctor can handle in a day means a lot.
Secondly, the statement provides an unjustified claim that there are 20% lower success rates in community hospitals. In treating patients, it is not only the doctors who decide the success rate, but also other circumstances like criticality of the patient's disease, how weak the patient is to take up the medical process and at what stage of disease he/she is admitted in hospital.
The argument also claims that the overall profit is less in university hospitals. This is an unwarranted premise to make a conclusion that the quality of care at university hospital is lower than that of other kinds of hospitals. It could be well justified that the main motive of the university hospitals is to provide quality service at cheap cost.
The claim that the doctors divide their time among teaching, conducting research and treating patients in turn weakens the argument in a way that research is very important for medical practitioner as it leads to discovery of new medicines and technical advancements in treatment methodologies.
Thus the evidence provided for the claim that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that of other kinds of hospitals has many logical faults in it. More details about the kind of diseases treated, average work experience of the doctors could help is strengthening the authors claim.
The following appeared in an article in the health section of a newspaper:
"There is a common misconception that university hospitals are better than community or private hospitals. This
notion is unfounded, however: the university hospitals in our region employ 15 percent fewer doctors, have a 20
percent lower success rate in treating patients, make far less overall profit, and pay their medical staff considerably
less than do private hospitals. Furthermore, many doctors at university hospitals typically divide their time among
teaching, conducting research, and treating patients. From this it seems clear that the quality of care at university
hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
ANSWER:
The argument claims that the misconception of university hospitals is better than community/private as unfounded. However, there are serious flaws in the evidence provided by the author to prove this misconception wrong.
First of all, The example provided brings up the happenings in a particular hospital/region. It is not necessary that it applies universally to all hospitals. The stated example claims that the particular hospital has 15% fewer doctors. When it comes to treating the patients, the quality of doctors matters more than the quantity. By quality, things such as the amount of experience the doctors has, the numbers of patients each doctor can handle in a day means a lot.
Secondly, the statement provides an unjustified claim that there are 20% lower success rates in community hospitals. In treating patients, it is not only the doctors who decide the success rate, but also other circumstances like criticality of the patient's disease, how weak the patient is to take up the medical process and at what stage of disease he/she is admitted in hospital.
The argument also claims that the overall profit is less in university hospitals. This is an unwarranted premise to make a conclusion that the quality of care at university hospital is lower than that of other kinds of hospitals. It could be well justified that the main motive of the university hospitals is to provide quality service at cheap cost.
The claim that the doctors divide their time among teaching, conducting research and treating patients in turn weakens the argument in a way that research is very important for medical practitioner as it leads to discovery of new medicines and technical advancements in treatment methodologies.
Thus the evidence provided for the claim that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that of other kinds of hospitals has many logical faults in it. More details about the kind of diseases treated, average work experience of the doctors could help is strengthening the authors claim.
