1006G[Redemption]备考贴 by gantian

bzr2915UID：2612029

22# gantian

很棒的总结！

第六次作业--Argu203

攻击步骤：
1.    错误的假设average length of a patient's stay更短，花得钱就更少。 并没有给patient’s stay的细节，在同一天做化疗和打葡萄糖的cost不一样，有可能因为太贵了，S病人没有还未痊愈就出院了。
2.    better quality也无根据
       a.    在没有对patient的病进行调查之前，去对比Cure rate是无法对比的。有可能S的病人都是一些小毛病，很容易治愈；
       b.    More employees per patient这种比率也是没有意义的。有可能是因为S的病人少，也有可能M有个附属制药厂聘用了很多生产药物的employee，而对医院里的patient无意义。
       c.    Few complains about the service不能证明S的病人更满意，这里说的是service，说不定S的病人只是觉得服务很好，more complains about医疗效果，医院硬件条件呢。
3.    就算在S和M成立，也不代表所有的smaller, nonprofit hospitals or larger, for-profit hospitals


习作：

This argument concludes that the smaller, nonprofit hospital's treatment is more economical and of better quality than the larger, for-profit hospital's. To support this claim, it cites a comparison between Saluda(S) hospital and Megavile(M) hospital regarding the average length of patients’ stay, cure rate, the number of employees per patient and the amount of complaints about the service. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several questionable assumptions and other logical problems, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the argument depends on an unfounded assumption that it will cost the patients less money if they stay at hospital less.(这个地方a中并没有正面说和经济相关，也可能说住院时间短与医疗效果之间的关系。这样说会不会欠妥？） The arguer provides no details about the patient's stay in the hospital which are important in comparing the two hospitals. For instance, it is a significant difference about the cost between receiving chemotherapy in one day and only having intravenous glucose drip in another day. Perhaps it is the huge expenses in S that makes patients leave the hospital without recovery which results in less stay time.（可能是由于这种巨大的开销让S的病人没康复就出院了致使了较短的住院时间。按照前面的推理，你的意思是用化疗的人本来注射葡萄糖就能好，但是S讹他偏要它化疗？） If so, the author cannot reasonably conclude that S is more economical.

The arguer also unfairly infers that S is of better quality than M in three respects. First, without given details about the patients' diseases, the cure rate is not comparable. It is possible that most of the patients in S only have a slight indisposition which results in higher cure rate.（不妨再具体一点，什么样的轻微症状） Second, the comparison of the number of employees per patient is meaningless. For example, a lower employees to patient ratio in M may due to a large amount of patients which, on the contrary, looks like more popular（仅由病人多不能得出 雇员-病人 比率低 还要强调一下雇员数量，后面那句LOOKS LIKE MORE POPULAR干嘛的？人多和医院好坏也不一定有因果关系吧）. Or perhaps S has an attached pharmacy factory and hires many employees making and selling medicines that it could hardly take their contribution into consideration. Third, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the patients in S are satisfier than M for the few complains about the service. There is （a）possibility that the patients in S are pleased with the service but have more complains about the instruments and efficiency there.（效率和器具的不满依然和治疗效果没直接关系，不妨直接说对治愈效果的投诉）

Finally, the argument rests on the groundless assumption that S and M typify smaller, nonprofit hospitals and larger, for-profit hospitals respectly. S is located in the town, and M is located in the city. It is entirely possible that the location (论述不充分展开一下）plays a key element in the difference between S and M rather than the attributes of them.（话没说完，所以他们只是个例，不能推广）

To sum up, the arguer's conclusion relies on several poor assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author may provide more details about the comparison between S and M, and the representativeness of S and M。

细节论证不是太翔实，逻辑点都想到了，但驳论做的不是太有力，关于句子用词，我也拿不准，不予评论~ 加油加油~