- 最后登录
- 2011-4-19
- 在线时间
- 36 小时
- 寄托币
- 200
- 声望
- 1
- 注册时间
- 2009-11-19
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 175
- UID
- 2728234
- 声望
- 1
- 寄托币
- 200
- 注册时间
- 2009-11-19
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
本帖最后由 snowsguoguo 于 2010-2-7 23:11 编辑
A203 第一次修改 by 甘甜 第二次修改 by Doreen
203.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."
在Saluda镇的小型非盈利医院,患者平均逗留时间是两天;在邻近的Megaville市的大型盈利医院,患者平均逗留时间为6天。而且,Saluda医院患者的治愈率大约是Megaville医院的两倍。Saluda平均每个患者对应的医务人员的数量比Megaville医院多,而且地方医院关于服务的投诉也较少。这些数据表明小型非盈利医院的治疗比大型盈利医院更加经济,质量更高。
[错误]
[个人意见]
提纲:
一、
偷换范围 一所医院不等代表所有同类型医院 可能S&M 囧 是特例
二、
[Evidence 1+2+4] => [Conclusion 1.1]
[E1]: 1.停留时间短不等于治愈时间短 2.时间短不等于费用低
[E2]: 1.治愈率高可能费用更高而不是省钱 2. 数据不完整 S医院一般看看感冒 M医院癌症 治愈率不能说明医院水平 更不能说明哪个更加经济
[E4]: 自相矛盾的证据 每个病人对应医务人员数量更多 所以不经济
三、
[Evidence 2+3+4] => [Conclusion 1.2]
[E2]:同样的道理治愈率高不等于质量好
[E3]:人均享有医护人员数量可能1.M医院更加有效率 2.staff水平更高 所以质量也可能比S医院好
[E4]:投诉少不等于质量好 1.数据无基数 S医院病人总数少 所以投诉:总人数 比例不一定小 2.S医院可能投诉渠道很复杂 病人没办法真实反映
其他:只对比一部分变化 治疗质量还需要其他判断因素
[Evidence 1.1] At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, the average length of a patient’s stay is two days
[Evidence 1.2] At the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the average patient stay is xis days.
[Evidence 2] the cure rate among patients in the S hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital.
[Evidence 3] The S hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in M
[Evidence 4] there are few complaints about service at the local hospital.
[Conclusion 1.1] treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals.
[Conclusion 1.2] better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals
In this argument, the author made a conclusion about all hospitals that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in those larger, for-profit hospitals. To substantiate this inference, the author also quoted supporting evidence indicating that a small nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda has a shorter average stay time in the hospital than a large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville. Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is higher than that of the Megaville hospital which has less employees per patient and have[has] more complaints about service than the hospital in Saluda. At fist sight, the argument might be appealing, but close perlustration reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is consequently unpersuasive.
In illustrating the assumption that treatment in hospitals which share the feature of the hospital in Saluda is more economical than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals like the hospital in Megaville, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The comparison between two hospitals may be a special one and it is not a sufficiently large sample of all hospitals in those two types. The author ought to give more adequate supporting evidence and[并列关系有些奇怪] the general conclusion cannot be reached merely basing on these special and limited cases.
To demonstrate that treatment in the hospital in Saluda is more economical than treatment in the hospital in Megaville, the author give the evidence that the average patient stay days in the hospital in Saluda is shorter than in Megaville which cannot infer that those patients were cured during that period so that it may costs more time and money to heal the disease. Additionally, the article did not mention that whether patients spend less money in less time so that we cannot draw a conclusion of which hospital has more efficiency of treatment. Author also mentioned that the hospital in Saluda has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville which may cause more treatment fees. In that case this piece of evidence could serve to refute the author’s assumption. [好句,学习了]Moreover, the evidence that displayed the cure rate among patients in the hospital in Saluda is about twice that of the Megaville hospital cannot demonstrate that treatment fees is lower and not reason to the treatment of which hospital is more economical. The author did not showed any evidence about the illness level of each hospital. There may be a chance that most patients of the hospital in Megaville have seriously illness like cancer which, of course, has lower cure rate than the cure rate among patients int the hospital in Saluda. Since they did not share same illness range, we could not simply compare the treatment of which hospital is more econimcal.
[记着段落之间留一行空白]
Similarly, we could not infer from that evidence that which hospital has quality of treatment[+better]either. Since that patients in the hospital in Saluda have more average medical staff number per patient, did not infer that this hospital have[has] more efficiency of treatment[这句话语法有些问题]. There might be other reason to support the assumption that the hospital in Megaville have other way to offer a better quality treatment to patient, such as the medical staff are more professional or the leader of this hospital have a great way to organize their staff so that they can give patients a quality of treatment. Otherwise, the article mentioned that there is less compliant in the hospital in Saluda, which did not give the total patient number. Without calculate the compliant to patient ratio, the author could not make sure which hospital suffers more compliant indeed. Even the compliant number is bigger, still cannot reason that of which is more serious. Assuming that the hospital in Megaville have more seriously compliant, without make sure whether each patient is able to compliant, we still have no rights to make a judgment about which hospital have a better quality of service. In addition, this article only give part of factors to decide the quality of treatment, there is a lot more factors need to be known before we make the conclusion of it.
[记着段落之间留一行空白]
To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibility. The author has overlooked or chosen to ignore many respects of the facts. To strengthen the conclusion, the author should give more evidence about the possibilities mentioned above.
总结:
文章逻辑很有层次,而且每个攻击都充分展开来论述。(很赞找到的他因)。哈哈不是我改得不认真,我看了好几遍也没发现有什么其他的意见可以提了,等第二次批改看看其他人给的建议吧。一起加油加油^_^
--gantian
In this argument, the author made a conclusion about all hospitals that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in those larger, for-profit hospitals. To substantiate this inference, the author also quoted supporting evidence indicating that a small nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda has a shorter average stay time in the hospital than a large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville which inferred that the hospital in Saluda has better quality of treatments. Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is higher than that of the Megaville hospital which has less employees per patient and has more complaints about service than the hospital in Saluda. At fist sight, the argument might be appealing, but close perlustration reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is consequently unpersuasive.
In illustrating the assumption that treatment in hospitals which share the feature of the hospital in Saluda is more economical than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals like the hospital in Megaville, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The comparison between two hospitals may be a special one and it is not a sufficiently large sample of all hospitals in those two types. The author ought to give more adequate supporting evidences to ensure that majority of large hospital share the same feature of the hospital in Megaville mentioned before,
and the general conclusion cannot be reached merely basing on these special and limited cases.
To demonstrate that treatment in the hospital in Saluda is more economical than treatment in the hospital in Megaville, the author give the evidence that the average patient stay time in the hospital in Saluda is shorter than in Megaville from which cannot infer that those patients were cured during that period so that it may cost more time and money to cure the patients of disease. Additionally, the article did not mention whether patients spend less money in less time so that we cannot draw a conclusion of which hospital has more efficiency of treatment. Author also mentioned that the hospital in Saluda has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville which may charge more treatment fees. In that case this piece of evidence could serve to refute the author’s assumption. Moreover, the evidence that displayed the cure rate among patients in the hospital in Saluda is about twice that of the Megaville hospital cannot demonstrate that treatment fees is lower and not reason to the treatment of which hospital is more economical. The author did not showed any evidence about the illness level of each hospital. There may be a chance that most patients of the hospital in Megaville have seriously illness like cancer which, of course, has lower cure rate than the cure rate among patients in the hospital in Saluda. Since they did not share same illness range, we could not simply compare the treatment of which hospital is more economical.
Similarly, we could not infer from that evidence that which hospital has quality of treatment better either. Since that the hospital in Saluda have more employees per patient, did not infer that this hospital has more efficiency of treatment. There might be other reason to support the assumption that the hospital in Megaville have other way to offer a better quality treatment to patient, such as the medical staff are more professional or the leader of this hospital have a great way to organize their staff so that they can give patients a quality of treatment. Otherwise, the article mentioned that there is less compliant in the hospital in Saluda, which did not give the total patient number. Without calculate the compliant to patients ratio, the author could not make sure which hospital suffers more compliant indeed. Even the compliant number is bigger, still cannot reason that of which is more serious. Assuming that the hospital in Megaville have more seriously compliant, without make sure whether each patient is able to compliant, we still have no rights to make a judgment about which hospital have a better quality of service. In addition, this article only give part of factors to decide the quality of treatment, there is a lot more factors need to be known before we make the conclusion of it.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibility. The author has overlooked or chosen to ignore many respects of the facts. To strengthen the conclusion, the author should give more evidence about the possibilities mentioned above.
语法要加强。 ---Doreen
|
|