#17 - Health-care facilities have a duty to protect their

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[KSL]

I got this answer wrong during timed practice test selecting C. I’m my blind review I got it correct. I understand why it is correct but have a question about the conclusion.

I thought the main conclusion was the first sentence. I feel “health-care facilities must institute policies that make influenza vaccinations mandatory for all employees” supported the first sentence but since I wasn’t sure so I just used the negation technique on them both and just picked what made sense... my problem is this took to much time.

I was quite good at distinguishing premises from conclusions ( as the Bible’s say it is essential) and all of a sudden from about 2015 PT and on.. I struggle a lot.

I recognized the indicator of so, with the since and expected the conclusion later but once read it, thought it was a subsidiary conclusion.

Any tips?

R,

[Jay Donnell]

Hi KSL!

You're right that the first sentence has a bit of a conclusion-esque feel to it, but I think I know a way to get you out of trouble here and in future similar situations.

With the two uses of 'since' in the windy second sentence both preceded by the 'So' we can tell a conclusion is coming down the line, so the last portion of that sentence is definitely a conclusion, "health-care facilities must institute policies that make influenza vaccinations mandatory for all employees."

So, let's say you're having trouble deciding whether that last statement or the first sentence is the main conclusion. Fear not, I know just the trick!

This is the perfect opportunity to run what I call the "Since/Therefore Test." In order to tell which of two claims supports the other (in order to spot the main conclusion), read one preceded by since, and the other preceded by therefore. Then, swap the order.

In this case, let's first test if the last statement supports/proves the first. If you read them as:

"Since health-care facilities must institute policies that make influenza vaccinations mandatory for all employees, therefore health-care facilities have a duty to protect their patients from unnecessary harm," it doesn't really feel like a valid argument is formed.

However, when read the other way it becomes clear that the first statement supports the bottom claim, which makes the bottom the main conclusion. Take a look:

"Since health-care facilities have a duty to protect their patients from unnecessary harm, therefore health-care facilities must institute policies that make influenza vaccinations mandatory for all employees."

I love to play this drill with my in-person classes, because when the right orientation is read out loud it's like the students all turn into meerkats! People unconsciously look up and around the room because all of a sudden, they realized that round just felt right, and we have successfully decided which claim is the main conclusion versus merely a premise or subsidiary conclusion.


I hope that helps!

-Jay

[curly1]

Hi! I chose C because I thought the gap between the conclusion and premise is between making it mandatory for employees to get vaccinated vs. making it mandatory for patients to get vaccinated.

So, my pre-phrase was, "The reason health-care facilities need to make vaccinations mandatory for employees is because patients can't be relied on to get vaccinations but employees can," and that's why I thought C was correct.

Could you explain why D is correct? Thank you!

[bbonds675]

Hi! I chose C because I thought the gap between the conclusion and premise is between making it mandatory for employees to get vaccinated vs. making it mandatory for patients to get vaccinated.

So, my pre-phrase was, "The reason health-care facilities need to make vaccinations mandatory for employees is because patients can't be relied on to get vaccinations but employees can," and that's why I thought C was correct.

Could you explain why D is correct? Thank you!

I'm not PS staff but I used the assumption negation technique for (D).

"Voluntary vaccinations policies at health-care facilities would adequately protect patients from the risks posed by the influenza virus"

If a voluntary vaccination policy adequately addresses the problem, there's no need for the facility to institute a mandatory policy.

That's how I arrived at (D).

[Adam Tyson]

Nice work, bbonds675! That's exactly how to do it. If a voluntary program would be sufficient, then a mandatory program is not required. The conclusion was that we MUST have a mandatory program, and that would be destroyed by that negation.

To take that a step further, curly1, let's try the negation of answer C. What if most of the patients are vaccinated? Does that mean we no longer need to have mandatory vaccinations of the staff? Not at all! Even if most patients are vaccinated, there could still be some that are not and need that protection. So even in that case, perhaps we must have a mandatory vaccination program for the staff? For that matter, what if the vaccines, though very effective, sometimes fail? The vaccinated patients could still be at risk in that case, so again, we could be looking at a "better safe than sorry" situation where the staff needs to also be vaccinated. Since the negation of answer C does not destroy the argument, it is not the correct answer for this assumption question.

Focus on that conclusion - we MUST have that policy in place - and prephrase an answer that gets us there. You might think to attack the argument by asking "what if there is an alternative that works just as well?", and the author would respond with a defender assumption - "I assumed there was no equally effective alternative."

Keep up the good work, gang!