1、錯(cuò)誤類比 兩個(gè)城市不一樣，很可能因?yàn)槲骱蜄|的不一樣，比如，路的情況traffic condition�？赡軚|的車輛更好。服務(wù)的態(tài)度更好。

而且沒有說東的志愿情況如何，很可能東的志愿比商業(yè)的快。

2、草率的判斷：就算是商業(yè)的更快，也不一定更好。反映時(shí)間不是的因素，有其他——比如服務(wù)的質(zhì)量，態(tài)度，器材等等。

3、另外，除非商業(yè)可以charge considerable fees 或者 accident rate非常高，否則未必帶來可觀的revenue。

1.response time 并不是衡量服務(wù)質(zhì)量的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

2.West 和East情況不同，不能比較，比如West的交通很差

3.commercial必須要收取一個(gè)比較高的fee才能使town得revenue上升，具體數(shù)字未給出

北美范文：

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.