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 squad¹ 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报纸的社论片断：
最近的对西Cambria的志愿救护服务的回顾显示出其对事故的平均应对时间比设在东Cambria的一个商业救护班要长。为了给事故受害者提供更好的医护服务并通过收取急救服务费来提高我们镇的税收，我们应当解散志愿救护并雇佣商业救护服务。
1.       对事故的反映时间诚然是评价服务质量的一个因素但并不是唯一的因素.所以仅仅因为东区的商业救护班的反映时间短就认定商业救护办的服务更好是gratuitous的.
2.       就算东区的商业班的服务质量更好也并不意味着,西区用商业班就会有一样的成效.因为东西区的情况是不同的.很可能西区的志愿者更有服务,献身意识.
3.       此外除非商业班收十分昂贵的服务费用或者有十分多的事故事实这些都是不可能的, 改成商业是不见得就可以给该镇增加很多税收的.所以把这一点作为理由是不正确的.
considerable revenue significant significance consequently consequence ... is insufficient³ evidence for the claim that this will be the case for ... ambulance-crew proficiency⁴ training emergency
 
1， 错误类比 两个城市不一样，很可能因为西和东的不一样，比如，路的情况traffic condition。可能东的车辆更好。服务的态度更好。
而且没有说东的志愿情况如何，很可能东的志愿比商业的快。
2， 草率的判断：就算是商业的更快，也不一定更好。反映时间不是唯一的因素，有其他——比如服务的质量，态度，器材等等。
3，          另外，除非商业可以charge considerable fees 或者 accident rate非常高，否则未必带来可观的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 questionable⁵. 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 pertinent⁶ 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.