- 精华
- 2
- 积分
- 2676
- 经验
- 2676 点
- 威望
- 242 点
- 金钱
- 683 ¥
- 魅力
- 440
|
98. Compared to nonprofit hospitals of the same size, investor-owned hospitals require less public investment in the form of tax breaks, use fewer employees, and have higher occupancy levels. It can therefore be concluded that investor-owned hospitals are a better way of delivering medical care than are nonprofit hospitals.
Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion drawn above?
A. Nonprofit hospitals charge more per bed than do investor-owned hospitals.
B. Patients in nonprofit hospitals recover more quickly than do patients with comparable illnesses in investor-owned hospitals.
C. Nonprofit hospitals do more fundraising than do investor-owned hospitals.
D. Doctors at nonprofit hospitals earn higher salaries than do similarly-qualified doctors at investor-owned hospitals.
E. Nonprofit hospitals receive more donations than do investor-owned hospital.
After analysis of the above statement, we can make it clear that the arguer want to establish the casual relationship between the listed factors, including less public investment in the form of tax breaks, fewer employees and higher occupancy levels, and a better way of delivering medical care.
How to undermine this reasoning?
In my view, I think that we can weaken this argument in two ways. On the one hand, we can destroy the casual relationship the arguer wants to create. On the one hand, we can cite the fact that opposite the conclusion the arguer want to come to.
So , taking into account the above analysis , B is sound.
Because B cites the fact opposing the conclusion.
A is out of scope. The statement does not mention the relationship between the number of per bed and the better way of delivering medical care.
C makes the same mistake. The relationship between the fundraising and the better way of delivering medical care.
D is repeating the above flaw. The reasoning that the higher salaries doctors received, the better way of delivering medical care is open to doubt.
Finally, E follows the same way again. The arguer fails to convince us that more donations will lead to the better way of delivering medical care. |
|