32.        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
questionable. 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 pertinent 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.