Self-paced
Hospital auditor: The Rodríguez family stipulated that the funds they donated to the neurological clinic all be used to minimize patients' suffering. ███ ██████ ██████████████ ██ ███████ █████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
██████ ██████████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ████ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ████████████ █████████ █████ ████████ ███████
Hospital Auditor's Argument
The hospital auditor argues that the hospital is violating the terms of a donation, which specified funds must be used to minimize patients’ suffering. Why is there a violation? The clinic is using a portion of the money to research new diagnostic technology. And it seems the auditor assumes that diagnostic technology does not help to minimize suffering.
Clinic Administrator's Argument
The clinic administrator disagrees with the auditor's conclusion, coming to the implied conclusion that the hospital is complying with the terms and using the funds to reduce suffering. This is because new technologies will allow early diagnosis of some disorders, and patients who are treated early usually suffer much less. By offering this explanation, the administrator rebuts the auditor's assumption about diagnostic technology.
7.
The clinic administrator responds to ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
demonstrating that the ████████ █████████ ███████████ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █ █████ █████████████
The administrator doesn't broadly agree with the auditor's conclusion. In fact, their two conclusions are exactly opposite: the auditor thinks the hospital is breaching the donation terms, and the administrator thinks the hospital is respecting the terms.
b
showing that the ████████ █████████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████
Both the administrator and the auditor are talking about what is the case, not what ought to be the case. The administrator corrects the auditor about the actual impact of diagnostic technologies, not about an is/ought distinction.
c
reminding the hospital ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██ ██ ██
The administrator doesn't call out the auditor for telling the hospital staff what to do. The administrator is defending a specific use of the funds by saying it actually respects the donation's terms. There's no problem with the terms being imposed to begin with.
d
arguing that, in █████████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ██ ██████████
The administrator doesn't think there is a violation in the first place. The whole point of the administrator's argument is that the hospital is following the terms of the donation. The auditor just overlooks the role of diagnostic technologies in reducing suffering.
e
reinterpreting a key ██████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ████████
The hospital administrator certainly undermines an assumption the auditor makes, that diagnostic technologies don't help to minimize suffering. And that's the key term the administrator reinterprets: "minimizing suffering." The administrator shows that suffering can be minimized indirectly, as well as directly.