Argument203~[限时]求拍~有拍必回~~

parisyUID：2622097

TOPIC: ARGUMENT203 - 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."
WORDS: 431
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-4-7 9:59:42

提纲：
1，在医院时间长短不能说明治疗质量
2，治愈比率同样不能说明治疗质量
3，医院有更多工作人员不一定能提供更好服务
4，投诉少不能说明服务好


There are several facets are questionable in this argument. At first, the stayed time is not a good indication about the quality of treatment. Secondly, the cure rate can not indicate about the quality about the hospital. Thirdly, more employees for per patient could not ensure a better treatment for the patient. Finally, few complaints were received about the service does not demonstrate all the other people are satisfied with the service. So, the assertion which the author concluded in the argument is unreliable.

To begin with, the author has tried to make us believe that the Saluda hospital (SH) could provide better quality treatment because the average length of a patient's stay and the cure rate there is shorter than Megaville Hospital (MH).Lacking information about what kind of illness the patient have got, the author can not confidently draw any conclusion about the quality about the two hospitals. Maybe the patients who visited to SH have some slight sickness, and people may choose the big hospital like MH to cure some serious disease like cancer, or AIDS, and that kinds of sicknesses are not easy,even possible to heal.

Another question about the argument is that though there are more employees for per patient of SH than MH, the author can not make sure that every patient will be provided a better service. For the simple reason that we don't know the jobs of those employees, there may be some of them are bus drivers or cooks in cafeteria. They can do nothing to help patient restore. Granted that all the jobs the employees worked are helpful to the patients. We don't know whether they are loyal to their occupation. So the author generated the conclusion too hastily.

Finally, the data about complaints about service of SH could not ensure us SH provides better service. Because we don't know, how many patients have been the two hospitals respectively to cure some sicknesses, and what fraction of them has reported a complaint. May be the quantity of the complaints of SH is less than that of MH. But the fraction may be larger. Granted that both the quantity and fraction of the complaints received by SH is less. The author can not convince us that all the other people are satisfied with the service.

In conclusion, this argument can not be taken seriously as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide the detailed information about what kind of illness the patients have, what jobs do the employees worked for, and the exact proportion about the received complaints of all the patients.

irvine666UID：2575525

1# parisy

TOPIC: ARGUMENT203 - 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."
WORDS: 431
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-4-7 9:59:42

提纲：

1，在医院时间长短不能说明治疗质量
2，治愈比率同样不能说明治疗质量
3，医院有更多工作人员不一定能提供更好服务
4，投诉少不能说明服务好

先分析下你的提纲，的确题目有说到这4点，但是这4点并非全部来支持high quality的，实际上题目也有在最后一句提到过be economical. 此外我们在分析所谓的quality的时候，最好不要笼统的宣称blabla是为了提高quality.毕竟quality也是有很多种的，比如服务，器械，营业人员的水平，环境是否清洁等等。
所以作者的理由应该是这样：
1.医院治愈时间长短和治愈比率，作者实际上是想说的“医术”和“医疗器具”的优势
2.作者提到的是more employees per patient，而不是单纯的more workers.这个里面是有很大的猫腻的，大家应该一眼就开出来
3.抱怨是面对的服务质量


There are several facets are questionable in this argument. At first, the stayed time is not a good indication about the quality of treatment. Secondly, the cure rate can not indicate about the quality about the hospital. Thirdly, more employees for per patient could not ensure a better treatment(这里应该还有一个总员工人数的问题) for the patient. Finally, few complaints were received about the service does not demonstrate all the other people are satisfied with the service. So, the assertion which the author concluded in the argument is unreliable.(属于直接列举型的开头，1，2两个点可以合并一下。毕竟你后文当中1，2其实也是合并写的)

To begin with, the author has tried to make us believe that the Saluda hospital (SH) could provide better quality treatment（漏了个and） because the average length of a patient's stay and the cure rate there is shorter than Megaville Hospital (MH).Lacking information about what kind(the extend.毕竟你下文说的仅仅是slight illness和serious disease) of illness the patient have got, the author can not confidently draw any conclusion about(of) the quality about the two hospitals. Maybe the patients who visited to SH have some slight sickness, and people may choose(这个属于合理的他因，说明所有重病患者都比较倾向于大医院) the big hospital like MH to cure some serious disease like cancer, or AIDS, and that kinds of sicknesses are not easy,even possible to heal.(这里少掉一个比较致命的东西，估计你后文也有这种情况：没有提到这种可能的他因对作者立场的关键性负面作用. 你的结论是the author can not confidently draw any conclusion，为什么can not?你提到了他因，但是为什么这种他因能够支持你的话，反对作者的？这个是需要说清楚的)

Another question about the argument is that though there are more employees for per patient of SH than MH, the author can not make sure that every patient will be provided a better service. For the simple reason that we don't know the jobs of those employees, there may be some of them are bus drivers or cooks in cafeteria(这个是不合理的，大医院同样会有这些雇员，而且只多不少。这里的关键性入手点应该是per patient.实际上如果小医院本来就没什么生意，而大医院经常人满为患，自然小医院平均员工多一些). They can do nothing to help patient restore. Granted that all the jobs the employees worked are helpful to the patients. We don't know whether they are loyal to their occupation（这里同样有问题，loyality或者preoccupation,都不是所谓的“critical strike”，它们和你要提到的quality of service关系不大。关键的在这里：小医院可能没有大医院那么如此全面的医疗人员分布。比如麻醉师，比如操作X-Ray的。）. So the author generated the conclusion too hastily. (排开他因不合理以外，整段话的论述很不充分，除开TS句，就全部是他因了。然而我们的目的"并不是为了找他因，而是为了批作者的话"，所以自己的说理和逻辑分析，才是predominance)

Finally, the data about complaints about service of SH could not ensure us (that) SH provides better service. Because we don't know, how many patients have been the two hospitals respectively to cure some sicknesses, and what fraction of them has reported a complaint. May be the quantity of the complaints of SH is less than that of MH. But the fraction may be larger(这是啥意思...这里的关键点是可能很多病人不满但是没抱怨吧，直接讲出来就行，没必要去扯什么分数，老米这种逻辑思维单纯的肯定不会明白你在说什么). Granted that both the quantity and fraction of the complaints received by SH is less. The author can not convince us that all the other people are satisfied with the service.（最后一句，不知道是时间问题，还是你的思维问题，属于画蛇添足了，如果不能确定充分论述，那么就放掉这个点，拿出一个point但是不说清楚，就会成为败笔。花时间去找10个weak point把它们一一列举，不如花同样的时间把两个点彻底的讲清楚。）

In conclusion, this argument can not be taken seriously as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide the detailed information about what kind of illness the patients have, what jobs do the employees worked for, and the exact proportion about the received complaints of all the patients.（结尾不改，个人习惯～）

parisyUID：2622097

非常感谢，很有帮助~