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.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument asserts that a volunteer ambulance squad located in a small community in the rural interior of Pennsylvania has a slower response time than a commercial ambulance squad located 12 miles away. This is presented as cause for disbanding the squad and calling for its replacement by a commercial service. However, it fails to explain why dispatching an ambulance to an accident requires faster response times. The reasoning given certainly does not make clear how the response time would differ between the two scenarios. The reasoning does, however, appear to assume that if the ambulance arrives faster, the quality of care will be better. This assumption is flawed. Ambulances must have paramedics on board to administer medications, perform first aid, and apply a tourniquet. Without paramedics, the response time is significantly slower. In addition, the response times must be measured to determine whether there is a difference in the actual amount of time that elapsed between when a call was made for an ambulance and when the ambulance actually arrived. If the commercial ambulance arrived in six minutes, but decided to idle for several minutes at accident scenes to talk over the situation with the callers or the victims, the response time may have actually exceeded the response time of the volunteer ambulance. If the volunteer ambulance arrived on the scene in eight minutes, but it took longer, for whatever reason, to begin its life-saving procedures, the response time of that ambulance may have been faster
The argument also provides no explanation for the discrepancy in response times. The commercial ambulance may be based in a larger town, with a greater population, and a greater number of traffic routes. The distance between West Cambria and East Cambria is approximately 10 miles. It is possible that the commercial ambulance is dispatched more often, and has greater visibility, than the volunteer ambulance. The commercial ambulance may also be better equipped, with more medical supplies on board. The volunteer ambulance may have donated its equipment to the cause, which may have become obsolete or in need of replacement. The commercial ambulance may also dispatch additional vehicles, as backup, as it has more revenue available to pay for these additional vehicles
The argument fails to present any valid reasons why the response time should be different between volunteer and commercial ambulances. The volunteer brigade may be housed in a building that does not have adequate space to house additional vehicles or equipment. The volunteers may also have other obligations in the community, which prevent them from being available for the assignment of a call. In addition, the volunteers may not be willing to travel long distances to an accident scene in vehicles that are not well maintained. Any of these factors would slow down response times, regardless of the response method
The claim that a better response time will result in better patient outcomes is unsupported. There is no reason to believe that patients will fare any differently if they are transported by a commercial ambulance or by a volunteer ambulance. The outcome may be the same, regardless of the type of ambulance that is dispatched. The level of training of the paramedics, or the level of training of the drivers, may be a factor in the quality of care provided. However, there is no evidence that is presented in the argument to indicate that there is a significant difference in the quality of patient care between volunteer and commercial ambulances
The conclusion rests on the assumption that charging a fee for ambulance use will raise revenue for the volunteer ambulance squad. This assumption is based on the notion that ambulance fees are not passed on to those in need of medical assistance. However, this assumption may not be valid. A commercial ambulance may also be subject to the same regulations that apply as a volunteer ambulance. For example, both types of ambulance may be required to provide emergency care regardless of their ability to pay. This obligation may result in the imposition of fees for the provision of that care
In summary, this argument contains several flawed assumptions, and lacks any convincing evidence to support its conclusion.