习作argument203 请斧正

bzr2915UID: 2612029

203The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.

"At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, 【1】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. 【2】Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. 【3】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."

非盈利的小医院比盈利性大医院【1】经济【2】治疗效果好

【1】反驳经济：    住院时间统计无可比性   患病人群不同
                   住院时间与是否经济不成关系 住的时间短没有效果转院
【2】反驳治愈效果：治愈统计没有可比性     患病人群不同
                   人均服务人员数量与治愈效果没有因果
                   人多可能都是临时工或者实习学生
错误外推到所有医院

字数490 时间 2小时

The conclusion that smaller, nonprofit hospitals are more economical and have a better treatment quality than larger, for-profit ones is not cogent in two respects. First, the statistics of two hospitals are invalidated because there are other variables that can not be controlled equally. Second, the author unnecessarily extant a special case to universal. I will discuss all these flaws in turn.

Firstly, the length of patients' stay and the cure ratio can not be a validated evidence under the circumstance that larger, for-profit hospitals have more patients with serious diseases such like H1N1, HIV or a badly injure in car accident. On the contrary, smaller nonprofit hospitals tend to accommodate the ones who with slight symptoms like, for example, a milder fever, headache or cough. Furthermore a short length of patient stay can't constitute a correlative relationship with the expense cost in hospitals. It is likely that a smaller hospital offer better medicine which cure the patients in short time which might be costly. It is a common phenomenon in some small hospitals to prescribe antibiotics which is more expensive and faster heal effect than large hospital with a low-effective but safer and cheaper way to heal the patients. Another likely case is that someone injured seriously in a smaller hospital but can not be cured after stay two days moved to a larger one which could heals him for seven days. In this case, if the patient, at first, went to a larger hospital might save his money wasted in the smaller one.

Another statistic about the employees per patients is also unwarranted to support the conclusion that the patients in a smaller hospitals could receive a better treatment than a larger one. A strongly common sense tell us that the more employees might some other stuff such like manager or part-time job seeker instead of health professionals. An nonprofit hospitals more likely to hire person who devote themselves to patients with no charge who tend to be some not well educated medical department students who can't treat patient skillful as the for-profit hospitals' professionals with more experience. Though nonprofit hospital might has lots of such employees but with no effect.

Second, even though I concede that the local smaller nonprofit hospital has a better heal effect both in economical and cure rate than the larger for-profit one. There is no evidence to prove that this situation is suit for other place. It is possible that the local non-profit hospital received more donation and more excellent skillful professionals than the for-profit ones in a special period. The government and society will encourage some talents and invest money to it which will contribute the special case discussed above when a nonprofit was built in the beginning.

In short, if the author can not make a more convincing survey about the common situation among most of smaller non-profit and larger for-profit hospitals, it is not reasonable to receive such a conclusion.