- Patients are more likely to die in some hospitals than others
+
Hospitals have about equal per-patient funding
→
Mortality rate difference are because of differences in the quality of care
Now this argument is just ludicrous. More people die at some people than others...it MUST BE because of the doctors' differing quality of care
. Instead of thinking that way, maybe we should actually look more into the type of people that are going into these hospitals. Maybe some hospitals happen to be given more terminal cases than others. Maybe some hospitals that are in the inner-city typically get more cases of violence than those in rural communities. There are so many differences that we could attribute to the differing mortality rates. It seems that the patients would explain these differences; not the doctors.- (A) Yea okay this is decent. It shows that there are some hospitals that have personnel with more training or skills. However, does this necessarily equate to a difference in the quality of care? What if these advanced degrees were in philosophy and English? I don't think correcting my grammar could equate to a better quality of care (I can say this because I'm an English major right?
). The point is that having MORE advanced degrees does not equal MORE quality care. Even if it did, it would actually strengthen the argument rather than weaken it! We want to have an answer choice that promotes an alternative cause!(B) gives us this alternate cause! What is it? It says that the average severity of illness varies from hospital to hospital. This means that some hospitals simply have more dire cases than other hospitals. A hospital that primarily deals with stuffy noses will not have more deaths than a hospital that primarily deals with ICU patients. (B) thus weakens the idea that it is the quality of care that leads to a difference in mortality rates by saying, "nope! It is actually the patients that lead to diverging mortality rates. We are all awesome! (okay I added that last part in)"
(C) This functions kind of like (A). It just gives us a random fact that doesn't seemingly have anything to do with debunking the quality of care conclusion. We don't know what affect the "average number of years that staff members stay on" has on the argument.
(D) This actually strengthens the argument just a bit. If we say that the same surgical procedures are being done then maybe the only differentiating factor IS actually the doctors/nurses performing the care. Thus maybe would COULD say that it is the doctors and nurses that provide that differing quality of care that leads to the differing mortality rates.
(E) This one is odd. It is kind of a premise de-booster because, while it shows that mortality rates DO vary, they don't "vary considerably." Now we don't really know how much they vary but none of this really matters. The point is that it says nothing about what actually affects the mortality rates. It just says that the mortality rates are different. Well okay then!
