Self-study
Hospital auditor: The Rodríguez family stipulated that the funds they donated to the neurological clinic all be used to minimize patients' suffering. ███ ██████ ██████████████ ██ ███████ █████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
██████ ██████████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ████ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ████████████ █████████ █████ ████████ ███████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The hospital auditor argues that because the neurological clinic is using a significant amount of the Rodriguez family's funds to develop new diagnostic technologies, instead of letting the money flow directly to patients, the clinic is violating the Rodriguez family's stipulation that the funds all be used to minimize patients' suffering. The clinic administrator responds to this claim by pointing out that discovering new diagnostic technologies can allow early diagnosis of many neurological disorders, and patients diagnosed early usually suffer much less than patients diagnosed at a later stage. Thus, the clinic administrator implies that the funds used to develop new diagnostic technologies are helping minimize patients' suffering, and the clinic is not violating the Rodriguez family's terms.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The hospital auditor's argument assumes that the funds used to develop new diagnostic techniques are not contributing to the reduction of patients' suffering, since that money is not going directly to patients. The clinic administrator's argument points out additional information that undermines this assumption. She points out that contrary to what the auditor assumes, the development of new diagnostic technologies can actually contribute significantly to reducing patients' suffering. By implication, the funds allocated to developing new diagnostic technologies may well fall under the purview of "minimizing patient suffering", which is what the Rodriguez family funds were meant to do. Thus, the administrator undermines the hospital auditor's claim that the clinic is violating the terms of the donation.
7.
The clinic administrator responds to ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
demonstrating that the ████████ █████████ ███████████ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █ █████ █████████████
The clinic administrator does not agree with the hospital auditor’s conclusion or grant that it is "broadly correct". The information she presents in her argument is meant to counter the auditor's conclusion, by undermining the auditor's assumption about what it means to reduce patients' suffering.
b
showing that the ████████ █████████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████
The hospital auditor does not confuse what is going on and what ought to be going on. If anything, he is very clear on the difference, because he insists that what is currently going on — the clinic's current use of funds — is different from what ought to be going on according to the terms of the Rodriguez family's donation.
And the clinic administrator does not accuse the auditor of confusing these things. She actually agrees with the auditor's descriptions, both of what is the case — the clinic is using some of the money to develop new diagnostic technologies — and of what ought to be the case — the clinic should be using the money to reduce patients' suffering. She just denies that there is a conflict between the two, since new diagnostic technologies actually can reduce patients' suffering.
c
reminding the hospital ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██ ██ ██
The clinic administrator doesn't accuse the auditor of trying to tell the clinic what to do, even if that could be an implication of his argument. Though she rejects the auditor's conclusion, she does so not by complaining that the auditor is trying to tell the clinic what to do or how to do it, but by providing additional information to undermine an assumption the auditor makes.
d
arguing that, in █████████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ██ ██████████
The clinic administrator does not grant that a violation has occurred at all, let alone talk about how the severity of such a violation should be assessed. The point of her argument is that she doesn't think the clinic's use of the funds violates the funds' purpose of reducing patients' suffering.
e
reinterpreting a key ██████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ████████
This is correct. The phrase being reinterpreted is what it means to "minimize patients' suffering." The hospital auditor assumes that minimizing patients' suffering with these funds excludes using these funds to develop new diagnostic technologies: i.e., using these funds to develop new diagnostic technologies cannot help minimize patients' suffering. The clinic administrator suggests that minimizing patients' suffering doesn't just mean letting money flow directly to patients — say, to make them more comfortable — but also diagnosing and treating patients earlier, which can significantly reduce suffering. Thus, the clinic administrator undermines the assumption behind the auditor's conclusion.