Hi guys!
Quote:
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.
My responseThe argument claims that in order to provide better service for accident victims, we should disband our volunteer service and hire a commercial ambulance service. Stated in this way, this argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation and fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies heavily on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, this argument readily assumes that commercialization of ambulance service would bring a better and faster patient care for accident victims in West Cambria. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous examples of volunteer and non-profit health service with the good quality of service. For instance, Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) undoubtedly as one of the best non-profit and volunteer-based health service in the world. With this model, they are still successful in delivering health service in war-torn regions and developing countries.
Second, the argument fails to mention several key factors on which could be evaluated, such as the difference of size area between West and East Cambria that affects the speed of its service. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between area size and speed of service. To illustrate, West Cambria has twice of area size than East Cambria. West Cambria volunteer service took one hour to reach city limits, while East Cambria ambulance team can reach their city limits under 30 minutes.
If the argument had provided evidence that despite the difference of area size East Cambria has better patient care than West Cambria, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing. In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is, therefore, unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentions all the relevant facts.
In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the area size of service and volunteer-based model for healthcare services. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.