Argument203 [Victors小组]第10次作业 by gyyx

gyyxUID: 2290150

A203：The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.

"At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, the average length of a patient's stay is two days; at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the average patient stay is six days. Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. Such data indicate that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals."

In this argument, the author concludes that smaller, nonprofit hospital’s treatment is better and more economical than larger, for-profit ones’, due to some statistics in Saluda and Megaville he relied on. However, I find some logical fallacies in this argument which would be stated at the following of this passage.  

The first problem with this argument is that the arguer ignores some other possible explanations for the two days’ average length of a patient’s stay at the small, nonprofit hospital in Saluda, compared with six days in Megaville. Maybe patients go to small, nonprofit hospital just for small and easy treatment such as cold, headaches, as small, nonprofit did not own enough money to pay for the expensive equipment. And for large, for-profit hospital, they could do some big treatment such as surgery, chemotherapy and so on, which small, nonprofit hospital could not do. If so, these big treatment need more days stay in hospital in order to observe and serve better, and moreover there’s no evidence indicate that large, for-profit hospital will charge more than smaller, nonprofit ones, thus the author’s conclusion that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospital is more economical of better quality than in larger, for-profit ones is unconvincing.

Secondly, the mere fact that twice and even more times in the cure rate does not demonstrate smaller, nonprofit hospital serve a better service in treatment than larger, for-profit ones. Just like my assumption above, that is because of cold and headaches are cure that of high cure rate, and also the number of patients in smaller hospital is smaller. Moreover, perhaps if the patients in smaller hospital of Saluda need a deeper and finer treatment, they will be sent to a larger hospital, maybe, that is, the one in Megaville. As a result, the cure rate of smaller hospital remains high, and the rate of larger one may be lower down. Lack of details about this makes me doubt the author’s conclusion.

Furthermore, the author assumes that more employees per person and fewer complaints directly illustrate better service and economical treatment. It is high possible that there are more patients in the larger hospital but the employees of per person is enough to provide as good service as smaller one. And for smaller hospital, patients treat their indispositions would not complain even if they did not satisfy the service, but for larger ones, patients there may the way of complaints to enforce their rights. In either of these explanations, the author would not justifiably get the conclusion.

To summarize, without addressing alternative explanations for the statistics the author rely on, he could not fulfill his conclusion. To bolster this argument, the author should provide more evidence such as the number of patients in these two hospitals, the profit and expense of them, and even a survey about the treatment service of these two hospitals.

jennetrjUID: 2275453

A203：The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.

"At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, the average length of a patient's stay is two days; at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the average patient stay is six days. Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. Such data indicate that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals."

In this argument, the author concludes that smaller, nonprofit hospital’s treatment is better and more economical than larger, for-profit ones’, due to some statistics in Saluda and Megaville he relied on. However, I find some logical fallacies in this argument which would be stated at the following of this passage.  

The first problem with this argument is that the arguer ignores some other possible explanations for the two days’ average length of a patient’s stay at the small, nonprofit hospital in Saluda, compared with six days in Megaville. Maybe patients go to small, nonprofit hospital just for small and easy treatment such as cold, headaches, as small, nonprofit did not own enough money to pay for the expensive equipment. And for large, for-profit hospital, they could do some big treatment such as surgery, chemotherapy and so on, which small, nonprofit hospital could not do. If so, these big treatment need more days stay in hospital in order to observe and serve better, and moreover there’s no evidence indicate that large, for-profit hospital will charge more than smaller, nonprofit ones, thus the author’s conclusion that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospital is more economical of better quality than in larger, for-profit ones is unconvincing.

Secondly, the mere fact that twice and even more times in the cure rate does not demonstrate smaller, nonprofit hospital serve a better service in treatment than larger, for-profit ones. Just like my assumption above, that is because of cold and headaches are cure that of high cure rate, and also the number of patients in smaller hospital is smaller. Moreover, perhaps if the patients in smaller hospital of Saluda need a deeper and finer treatment, they will be sent to a larger hospital, maybe, that is, the one in Megaville. As a result, the cure rate of smaller hospital remains high, and the rate of larger one may be lower down. Lack of details about this makes me doubt the author’s conclusion.

Furthermore, the author assumes that more employees per person and fewer complaints directly illustrate better service and economical treatment. It is high possible that there are more patients in the larger hospital but the employees of per person is enough to provide as good service as smaller one. And for smaller hospital, patients treat their indispositions would not complain even if they did not satisfy the service, but for larger ones, patients there may the way of complaints to enforce their rights. In either of these explanations, the author would not justifiably get the conclusion.

To summarize, without addressing alternative explanations for the statistics the author rely on, he could not fulfill his conclusion. To bolster this argument, the author should provide more evidence such as the number of patients in these two hospitals, the profit and expense of them, and even a survey about the treatment service of these two hospitals.

LZ的写作思路偏向于根据论据各条驳斥，问题是期间可能有相同的逻辑错误在不同的论据中，个人认为比较容易造成论述重复。