John ruskin in his essay "work," claims that doctors value curing the sick more than money, and offers the following reason in support of his claim.
[doctors] in the whole, desire to cure the sick; and-if they are good doctors, and the choice were fairly put to them- would rather cure their patient and lose their fee than kill him and get it.
which best evaluates the support ruskin offers for his claim?
a. it is not logical; the author ignores other possibilities-that the patient is cured and the doctor still gets his fee, for example.
b. it is not logical; the aurthor himself is not a doctor, so he does not have the expertise necessary to qualify his opinion.
c. it is logical; most people don't want to become doctors just for the sake i money

A. it is not logical; the author ignores other possibilities-that the patient is cured and the doctor still gets his fee, for example.

The justification that Ruskin gives for his argument is not a very strong one. He states that doctors would rather lose the fee they are supposed to be paid rather than kill their patient. This is probably true, but it is overly simplistic. It ignores several other possibilities, for example, the possibility of lower fees, the possibility of the patient not dying, but being uncomfortable for longer, or the possibility of changing jobs if the pay is low.

obama was told in early july 2004 that he was chosen to deliver the address, and he largely wrote the speech himself, with later edits from the kerry presidential campaign.