43.      
　　In this argument the author concludes that university hospitals provide no better care than private or community hospitals. The author bases this conclusion on the   following claims about university hospitals: the ones in this region employ 15 percent  fewer doctors; they have a 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients; they pay  their staffs less money; they make less profit than community hospitals; and they utilize  doctors who divide their time betweenteaching, research and treating patients. This  rgument is unconvincing for several reasons.

      The most egregious¹ reasoning error in the argument is the author’s use of  evidence pertaining² to university hospitals in this region as the basis for a generalization  about all university hospitals. The underlying³ assumption operative in this inference is  that university hospitals in this region are representative of all university hospitals. No  evidence is offered to support this gratuitous⁴ assumption.

      Secondly⁵, the only relevant reason offered in support of the claim that the quality  of care is lower in university hospitals than it is at other hospitals is the fact that  university hospitals have a lower success rate in treating patients. But this reason is not  sufficient to reach the conclusion in question unless it can be shown that the patients  treated in both types of hospitals suffered from similar types of maladies. For example,  if university hospitals routinely treat patients suffering from rare diseases whereas other  hospitals treat only those who suffer from known diseases and illnesses, the difference  in success rates would not be indicative of the quality of care received.

      Finally, the author assumes that the number of doctors a hospital employs, its  success rate in treating patients, the amount it pays its staff, and the profits it earns are  all reliable indicators⁶ of the quality of care it delivers. No evidence is offered to support  this assumption nor is it obvious that any of these factors is linked to the quality of care  delivered to patients. Moreover, the fact that doctors in university hospitals divide their  time among many tasks fails to demonstrate that they do a poorer job of treating patients  than doctors at other kinds of hospitals. In fact, it is highly likely that they do a better  job because they are more knowledgeable⁷ than other doctors due to their teaching and  research.

      In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument  the author would have to demonstrate that university hospitals in this region are  representative of all university hospitals, as well as establishing a causal link between  the various factors cited and the quality of care delivered to patients.

44.      
　　The management of the Megamart grocery store concludes that adding new  departments and services is the surest way to increase profits over the next couple of  years. They are led to this conclusion because of a 20 percent increase in total sates,  realized after the addition of a pharmacy⁸ section to the grocery store. On the basis of  this experience, they concluded that the convenience of one-stop shopping was the main  concern of their customers. The management’s argument is faulty in several respects.

      In the first place, the management assumes that the increase in total sales was due  to the addition of the pharmacy section. However, the only evidence offered to support  this conclusion is the fact that the addition of the pharmacy preceded the increase in  sales. But the mere⁹ fact that the pharmacy section was added before the increase  occurred is insufficient¹⁰ grounds to conclude that it was responsible for the increase.  Many other factors could bring about this same result. Lacking a detailed¹¹ analysis of the  source of the sales increase, it would be sheer folly¹² to attribute the increase to the  addition of the pharmacy section.

      In the second place, even if it were the case that the increase in total sales was due  to the addition of the pharmacy section, this fact alone is insufficient to support the  claim that adding additional departments will increase sales even further. It is quite  possible that the addition of the pharmacy section increased sales simply because there  was no other pharmacy in the vicinity. The additional proposed departments and  services, on the other hand, might be well represented in the area and their addition  might have no impact whatsoever¹³ on the profits of the store. In other words, there may  be relevant differences between the pharmacy section and the additional proposed  sections that preclude¹⁴ them from having a similar effect on the sales of the store.

      In conclusion, the management’s argument is not well-reasoned. To strengthen the  conclusion, the management must provide additional evidence linking the addition of  the pharmacy section to the increase in total sales. It must also show that there are no  exceptional reasons for the sales increase due to the pharmacy section that would not  apply to the other proposed additions.