Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
15 Jun 2020, 11:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
---
The argument that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than at other kinds of hospitals omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument.The stated conclusion derived from the premises cited is based on faulty assumptions and unclear evidences.
First, the argument assumes that less doctors and lower success rates in treating patients lead to a reduction in overall quality of care given to patients. This assumption untenably wrong, for it mistakens to correlate the quality of care with the number of doctors and their sucess rates. It is possible that these are specialist doctors who treat serious diseases. For instance, there are fewer number of doctors who treat serious illnesses such as Cancer, with a lower success rate, than the doctors who treat minor ailments such as common flu. The argument could have been more persuasive, if it provided information about the type of doctors that the hospital employed. In the absence of this evidence, the argument fails to convince.
Second, the argument wrongly assumes that ,since, these hospitals make far less profit than the other of kind of hospitals, they cannot provide comparable standards of care to their pateints. Although this statement would seem correct to draw the conclusion from the provided evidence, it only considers the profits of hospitals as the sole source of income, omitting severals others. One explanation could be that these university hospitals are charitable hospitals and are funded by government or by university for the treatment of poor people. The argument could have presented a strong case, if it presented infomation about the other income sources of the hospitals and section of society these hospitals treat. As the argument never addresses the cited flaws and draws far reaching conclusions, it is weak and , thereby, exposed to failure.
Finally, the argument assumes that since many doctors are not fully devoting their time to the treatment of the patients, the quality of care is lower. While it might be true some of doctors are involved in other activities such as teaching and research, it is not defined which doctors are completely assigned to treat the patients. The many doctors that the argument talks about can be understudy doctors who are partially assigned to the job. Failing to address this bifurcation, argument is unjustfied in drawing the conclusion.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is neither sound nor persuasive. If it included the items suggested above, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
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.
---
The argument that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than at other kinds of hospitals omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument.The stated conclusion derived from the premises cited is based on faulty assumptions and unclear evidences.
First, the argument assumes that less doctors and lower success rates in treating patients lead to a reduction in overall quality of care given to patients. This assumption untenably wrong, for it mistakens to correlate the quality of care with the number of doctors and their sucess rates. It is possible that these are specialist doctors who treat serious diseases. For instance, there are fewer number of doctors who treat serious illnesses such as Cancer, with a lower success rate, than the doctors who treat minor ailments such as common flu. The argument could have been more persuasive, if it provided information about the type of doctors that the hospital employed. In the absence of this evidence, the argument fails to convince.
Second, the argument wrongly assumes that ,since, these hospitals make far less profit than the other of kind of hospitals, they cannot provide comparable standards of care to their pateints. Although this statement would seem correct to draw the conclusion from the provided evidence, it only considers the profits of hospitals as the sole source of income, omitting severals others. One explanation could be that these university hospitals are charitable hospitals and are funded by government or by university for the treatment of poor people. The argument could have presented a strong case, if it presented infomation about the other income sources of the hospitals and section of society these hospitals treat. As the argument never addresses the cited flaws and draws far reaching conclusions, it is weak and , thereby, exposed to failure.
Finally, the argument assumes that since many doctors are not fully devoting their time to the treatment of the patients, the quality of care is lower. While it might be true some of doctors are involved in other activities such as teaching and research, it is not defined which doctors are completely assigned to treat the patients. The many doctors that the argument talks about can be understudy doctors who are partially assigned to the job. Failing to address this bifurcation, argument is unjustfied in drawing the conclusion.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is neither sound nor persuasive. If it included the items suggested above, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
Moderators:
188 posts
