argument203 =美丽G程小组=小组第十次作业 by丢手绢

丢手绢UID: 2737847

ARGUMENT203
1.错误类比，两个不同地点情况不同不能比较。
2.即便假设上述情况成立也属于个例，不能普遍概括所有情况。
3.错误假设，治疗时间短，治愈率高并不代表更加经济，质量更高。
    The argument is relatively well presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the small, non-profit hospital of Saluda, where the time patients spent in hospital is less and the cure rate is higher, with the large, for-profit hospital in Megaville, where patients spent more time but get a low cure rate, the argument draw the conclusion that treatment in small, non-profit hospital is more economical and better quality than in large, for-profit hospital.
However the author makes an illogical comparison between Saluda and Megaville. The analogy falsely depends on the assumption that the patients’ conditions and treatment conditions are the same in these two different places, but, apparently, there is no evidence shows that. We must consider the possibility that as Megaville is a big city which has a larger population, it has more complex diseases to deal with such as lung cancer, leukaemia, or rheumatoid, which cost longer time to cure and have a low cure rate. Additionally, as a common sense, people, both live in city and small town, often go to large hospital of big city to get a better treatment when they have this kind of complex diseases. This increases the average time spent on a patient and also decrease the cure rate of the large hospital.
Even assuming the result of the comparison is reasonable, the conclusion of the argument does not hold up yet. The case between two certain places is only a typical one which can’t stand for other circumstances. If we compare a small, non-profit hospital and a large, for-profit hospital in two different places the result may turn out the opposite.
    Finally, the author falsely assume that the average less time spent for treatment, the higher cure rate and the fewer complains about the hospital means more economical and better treatment. To begin with, there is not any evidence in this argument shows that treatment in small, non-profit hospital of Saluda is cheaper. Further more, better quality does not equal with less time in hospital or high cure rate. When talking about quality, it should include treatment conditions, service attitude, medical team, ability of treating difficult diseases and so on. Fewer complains can’t present the quality of a hospital.
    To sum up, this argument fails to substantiate the claim that treatment in small, non-profit hospital is more economical and better quality than in large, for-profit hospital because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide a general example instead of a typical one, and using accurate words to make his conclusion. If the argument had included this, it would have been more through and logically acceptable.