32. 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.”
一份西Cambria報紙的社論片斷：
最近的對西Cambria的志愿救護(hù)服務(wù)的回顧顯示出其對事故的平均應(yīng)對時間比設(shè)在東Cambria的一個商業(yè)救護(hù)班要長。為了給事故受害者提供更好的醫(yī)護(hù)服務(wù)并通過收取急救服務(wù)費來提高我們鎮(zhèn)的稅收，我們應(yīng)當(dāng)解散志愿救護(hù)并雇傭商業(yè)救護(hù)服務(wù)。
1. 對事故的反映時間誠然是評價服務(wù)質(zhì)量的一個因素但并不是的因素.所以僅僅因為東區(qū)的商業(yè)救護(hù)班的反映時間短就認(rèn)定商業(yè)救護(hù)辦的服務(wù)更好是gratuitous的.
2. 就算東區(qū)的商業(yè)班的服務(wù)質(zhì)量更好也并不意味著,西區(qū)用商業(yè)班就會有一樣的成效.因為東西區(qū)的情況是不同的.很可能西區(qū)的志愿者更有服務(wù),獻(xiàn)身意識.
3. 此外除非商業(yè)班收十分昂貴的服務(wù)費用或者有十分多的事故事實這些都是不可能的, 改成商業(yè)是不見得就可以給該鎮(zhèn)增加很多稅收的.所以把這一點作為理由是不正確的.
considerable revenue significant significance consequently consequence ... is insufficient evidence for the claim that this will be the case for ... ambulance-crew proficiency training emergency
1， 錯誤類比 兩個城市不一樣，很可能因為西和東的不一樣，比如，路的情況traffic condition。可能東的車輛更好。服務(wù)的態(tài)度更好。
而且沒有說東的志愿情況如何，很可能東的志愿比商業(yè)的快。
2， 草率的判斷：就算是商業(yè)的更快，也不一定更好。反映時間不是的因素，有其他——比如服務(wù)的質(zhì)量，態(tài)度，器材等等。
3， 另外，除非商業(yè)可以charge considerable fees 或者 accident rate非常高，否則未必帶來可觀的revenue。
In this argument the author concludes that West Cambria can increase revenues and provide better care to accident victims by disbanding the volunteer ambulance service and hiring a commercial one. The author reasons that this change would yield additional revenues because service fees could be imposed for ambulance use. The author also reasons that the city would provide better service to accident victims because a commercial service would respond more quickly to accidents than a volunteer service would. The author’s argument is flawed in two respects.
To begin with, the author’s plan for raising revenue for West Cambria is questionable. Unless the service fees are considerable or the accident rate is extremely high, it is unlikely that significant revenues will be raised by charging a fee for ambulance use. Consequently, revenue generation is not a good reason to disband the volunteer service and hire a commercial service.
Next, the author’s belief that better patient care would be provided by a commercial ambulance service than by a volunteer service is based on insufficient evidence. The fact that the commercial service in East Cambria has a lower average response time than the volunteer service in West Cambria is insufficient evidence for the claim that this will be the case for all commercial services. Moreover, the author’s recommendation depends upon the assumption that response time to an accident is the only factor that influences patient care. Other pertinent factors—such as ambulance-crew proficiency and training, and emergency equipment—are not considered.
In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to show that substantial revenue for the town could be raised by charging service fees for ambulance use. Additionally, the author would have to provide more evidence to support the claim that commercial ambulance services provide better patient care than volunteer services.
“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.”
一份西Cambria報紙的社論片斷：
最近的對西Cambria的志愿救護(hù)服務(wù)的回顧顯示出其對事故的平均應(yīng)對時間比設(shè)在東Cambria的一個商業(yè)救護(hù)班要長。為了給事故受害者提供更好的醫(yī)護(hù)服務(wù)并通過收取急救服務(wù)費來提高我們鎮(zhèn)的稅收，我們應(yīng)當(dāng)解散志愿救護(hù)并雇傭商業(yè)救護(hù)服務(wù)。
1. 對事故的反映時間誠然是評價服務(wù)質(zhì)量的一個因素但并不是的因素.所以僅僅因為東區(qū)的商業(yè)救護(hù)班的反映時間短就認(rèn)定商業(yè)救護(hù)辦的服務(wù)更好是gratuitous的.
2. 就算東區(qū)的商業(yè)班的服務(wù)質(zhì)量更好也并不意味著,西區(qū)用商業(yè)班就會有一樣的成效.因為東西區(qū)的情況是不同的.很可能西區(qū)的志愿者更有服務(wù),獻(xiàn)身意識.
3. 此外除非商業(yè)班收十分昂貴的服務(wù)費用或者有十分多的事故事實這些都是不可能的, 改成商業(yè)是不見得就可以給該鎮(zhèn)增加很多稅收的.所以把這一點作為理由是不正確的.
considerable revenue significant significance consequently consequence ... is insufficient evidence for the claim that this will be the case for ... ambulance-crew proficiency training emergency
1， 錯誤類比 兩個城市不一樣，很可能因為西和東的不一樣，比如，路的情況traffic condition。可能東的車輛更好。服務(wù)的態(tài)度更好。
而且沒有說東的志愿情況如何，很可能東的志愿比商業(yè)的快。
2， 草率的判斷：就算是商業(yè)的更快，也不一定更好。反映時間不是的因素，有其他——比如服務(wù)的質(zhì)量，態(tài)度，器材等等。
3， 另外，除非商業(yè)可以charge considerable fees 或者 accident rate非常高，否則未必帶來可觀的revenue。
In this argument the author concludes that West Cambria can increase revenues and provide better care to accident victims by disbanding the volunteer ambulance service and hiring a commercial one. The author reasons that this change would yield additional revenues because service fees could be imposed for ambulance use. The author also reasons that the city would provide better service to accident victims because a commercial service would respond more quickly to accidents than a volunteer service would. The author’s argument is flawed in two respects.
To begin with, the author’s plan for raising revenue for West Cambria is questionable. Unless the service fees are considerable or the accident rate is extremely high, it is unlikely that significant revenues will be raised by charging a fee for ambulance use. Consequently, revenue generation is not a good reason to disband the volunteer service and hire a commercial service.
Next, the author’s belief that better patient care would be provided by a commercial ambulance service than by a volunteer service is based on insufficient evidence. The fact that the commercial service in East Cambria has a lower average response time than the volunteer service in West Cambria is insufficient evidence for the claim that this will be the case for all commercial services. Moreover, the author’s recommendation depends upon the assumption that response time to an accident is the only factor that influences patient care. Other pertinent factors—such as ambulance-crew proficiency and training, and emergency equipment—are not considered.
In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to show that substantial revenue for the town could be raised by charging service fees for ambulance use. Additionally, the author would have to provide more evidence to support the claim that commercial ambulance services provide better patient care than volunteer services.