Passage 1: Now The Medical Man Who Sees The Patient Only On ✓ Solved

Passage 1: Now the medical man who sees the patient only onc

Passage 1: Now the medical man who sees the patient only once a day or even only once or twice a week, cannot possibly tell this without the assistance of the patient himself, or of those who are in constant observation on the patient. The utmost the medical man can tell is whether the patient is weaker or stronger at this visit than he was at the last visit. I should therefore say that incomparably the most important office of the nurse, after she has taken care of the patient's air, is to take care to observe the effect of his food, and report it to the medical attendant. (1860, Section VII, para.14)

Passage 2: To be "in charge" is certainly not only to carry out the proper measures yourself but to see that everyone else does so too; to see that no one either willfully or ignorantly thwarts or prevents such measures.

It is neither to do everything yourself nor to appoint a number of people to each duty, but to ensure that each does that duty to which he is appointed. This is the meaning which must be attached to the word by (above all) those "in charge" of sick, whether of numbers or of individuals. (1860, Section III, para.25)

In an essay, address the following: Is passage 1 an argument or an explanation? Is passage 2 an argument or an explanation? You must answer both questions by making an argument for your position. Provide the full text of each passage, state your classification, and, relying on concepts from the weekly reading, explain specifically why each passage is an argument or an explanation using relevant terms and concepts to support your reasoning.

Paper For Above Instructions

Full Text of Passage 1 (Florence Nightingale)

Now the medical man who sees the patient only once a day or even only once or twice a week, cannot possibly tell this without the assistance of the patient himself, or of those who are in constant observation on the patient. The utmost the medical man can tell is whether the patient is weaker or stronger at this visit than he was at the last visit. I should therefore say that incomparably the most important office of the nurse, after she has taken care of the patient's air, is to take care to observe the effect of his food, and report it to the medical attendant. (1860, Section VII, para.14)

Classification for Passage 1

Passage 1 is an argument.

Reasoned Analysis — Passage 1

Passage 1 exhibits the standard structure of an argument: it offers premises that support an explicit conclusion. The passage begins by asserting a factual claim about the frequency and limitation of medical visits: physicians "see the patient only once a day or even only once or twice a week" and therefore "cannot possibly tell" certain details without assistance. That factual claim functions as a premise establishing epistemic limitations on the physician. The passage then draws an evaluative-consequential claim: given this limitation, "the most important office of the nurse ... is to take care to observe the effect of his food, and report it to the medical attendant." The presence of the word "therefore" signals an inferential step from premises to conclusion, matching standard indicators of argument (Hurley, 2015; Govier, 2018).

Analytically, the passage contains (i) premises about the physician's limited observational access and (ii) an inferential claim about what follows for nursing duties. This is the hallmark of argumentation as defined in introductory logic and critical thinking: a group of statements (premises) offered as reasons for accepting another statement (conclusion) (Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, 2014; Walton, 2008). The passage is not merely explaining why nurses happen to do something; it is advocating that nurses ought to adopt a particular role because of epistemic facts about physicians' visits. Its practical-normative conclusion ("the most important office ... is to observe and report") is supported by empirical premises, forming a defeasible practical argument rather than a mere description.

Moreover, the rhetorical move—establishing a need and then prescribing a duty—follows common argumentation patterns (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). Thus, both structural indicators (premises–indicator–conclusion) and speech-act indicators (prescriptive recommendation grounded on stated reasons) justify classifying Passage 1 as an argument (Hurley, 2015; Govier, 2018).

Full Text of Passage 2 (Florence Nightingale)

To be "in charge" is certainly not only to carry out the proper measures yourself but to see that everyone else does so too; to see that no one either willfully or ignorantly thwarts or prevents such measures.

It is neither to do everything yourself nor to appoint a number of people to each duty, but to ensure that each does that duty to which he is appointed. This is the meaning which must be attached to the word by (above all) those "in charge" of sick, whether of numbers or of individuals. (1860, Section III, para.25)

Classification for Passage 2

Passage 2 is an explanation (a conceptual/definitional explanation of the meaning of being "in charge").

Reasoned Analysis — Passage 2

Passage 2 functions primarily to clarify the meaning of a term—“in charge”—and to correct misconceptions about that role. It offers paraphrase and contrastive descriptions: being “in charge” is not doing everything oneself, nor merely delegating superficially, but ensuring that appointed duties are performed. The passage explicitly states, "This is the meaning which must be attached to the word," which is an explanatory locution indicating semantic clarification rather than an inferential conclusion derived from premises.

In logic and philosophy of language, explanations that aim to elucidate meanings or functions are distinguished from arguments because their goal is to increase understanding rather than to persuade of a claim’s truth (Achinstein, 1983; Salmon, 1984). Passage 2 clarifies usage and role expectations by showing what being “in charge” involves and does not involve. While the text includes normative content (what should be the case for those in charge), its central speech act is explanatory: it defines and explicates the concept so that readers understand its correct application. There are no explicit premises offered as reasons to accept a controversial conclusion; instead, there is an explication and exemplification of sense, which aligns with definitional and functional explanations (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Explanation,” 2019).

Contrast with Passage 1: Passage 1 uses empirical premises to justify a practical conclusion; Passage 2 uses clarificatory paraphrase and contrast to specify a term’s meaning. The linguistic indicators also differ: Passage 1 contains an inferential marker ("I should therefore say"), while Passage 2 contains explicative markers ("This is the meaning which must be attached"), signaling explanation rather than argument (Hurley, 2015; Govier, 2018).

Conclusion

Applying the conceptual tools from introductory logic and the literature on explanation, Passage 1 is best read as an argument: it provides premises about observational limitations and draws a practical conclusion about nursing responsibilities. Passage 2 is best read as an explanation or definitional clarification of what "in charge" means in a clinical context. Both passages play different discursive roles in Nightingale’s practical guidance: one prescribes on the basis of reasons; the other elucidates the meaning of a term to guide understanding and practice.

References

• Nightingale, F. (1860). Notes on Nursing: What It Is and What It Is Not. London: Harrison.
• Hurley, P. J. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Logic (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Govier, T. (2018). A Practical Study of Argument (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to Logic (14th ed.). Routledge.
• Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Achinstein, P. (1983). The Nature of Explanation. Oxford University Press.
• Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton University Press.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2019). Explanation. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/explanation/
• Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2018). Critical Thinking (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.