Argument203 医院服务质量 谢谢，请留下您的习作链接，一定回拍

rodgoodUID: 2619326

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."

In this article, the writer compares two hospitals, which are Saluda(S), a small, nonprofit one in the town and Megaville(M), a large, for-profit one in the nearby city, in some of details about their treatment, concluding that treatment is more economical and better in small, nonprofit hospitals than in larger, for-profit ones. With careful scrutiny on the data and other evidence, I find them unpersuasive and the reasoning illogical, so the conclusion is out of support.

Firstly, the arguer mentions in the story that the time for patients staying in S is two days, while in M is six days, wishing to obtain a view of better quality in S. However, since the data merely provides the time of staying without any results, many possibilities of which exist behind the fact of time. Maybe patients in S just take a light ill that only needs two days to recover. Or, patients with serious sickness are transferred to larger hospitals in two days for poor medical quality or condition in S. On the other hand, in M the patients may suffer a more serious illness that always require more days for treatment. Thereby, with different conditions, the comparison of time in two hospitals is unconvincing.

Secondly, the higher cure rate in S than in M does not contribute to a conclusion of better medical care, either. As mentioned above, M always faces patients with more severe injuries or disease than that of S, some of which may be difficult, or even impossible to cure; while patients that visit S probably only take a ailment like a cold or so. So, there would be more uncovered patients in M than in S. Moreover, the number of patients in M is much larger for its size, position and reputation. Therefore, it would be normal for M to have a lower cure rate; but it cannot prove the M's supposed poorer medical quality.

Thirdly, more employees per patient have nothing to do the treatment quality without considering the level of their medical care and attitude towards the patient, which are not presented in the story, unfortunately. So, this evidence is useless. In addition, for its free service, S may not undertake any expectation from people; so even offering poor service, S will not receive many complaints. Things are much different in M, where medical services are for charge. Patients keep their watchful eyes on M and are more reliable on it; so any errors may bring serious complaints. As a consequence, with such two pieces of information, it is hasty to maintain that M's service is worse than that of S.

Furthermore, even though the treatment is worse and cost is higher in M than in S, the author cannot make a conclusion that conditions are the same in other hospitals without any investigation and analysis. The absolute opinion cannot be got unless more evidence is able to bolster it.

In sum, with the unreliable evidence presented in the feature story, the arguer had better not make the statement of the two hospitals. And, most importantly, only when more information of other hospitals is obtained would the final viewpoint be made.

britney0915UID: 2760578

好长啊，你怎么写这么长？是限时写的么？好奇的问一下
In this article, the writer compares two hospitals, which are Saluda(S), a small, nonprofit one in the town and Megaville(M), a large, for-profit one in the nearby city, in some of details about their treatment, concluding that treatment is more economical and better in small, nonprofit hospitals than in larger, for-profit ones. With careful scrutiny on the data and other evidence, I find them unpersuasive and the reasoning illogical, so the conclusion is out of support.（好简洁的开头，我每次一写就照着100去了，学习学习）

Firstly, the arguer mentions in the story that the time for patients staying in S is two days, while in M is six days, wishing to obtain a view of better quality in S. However, since the data merely provides the time of staying without any results, many possibilities of which exist behind the fact of time. Maybe patients in S just take a light ill that only needs two days to recover. Or, patients with serious sickness are transferred to larger hospitals in two days for poor medical quality or condition in S. On the other hand, in M the patients may suffer a more serious illness that always require more days for treatment. Thereby, with different conditions, the comparison of time in two hospitals is unconvincing.
（这段很好，没挑的，清晰，明了）
Secondly, the higher cure rate in S than in M does not contribute to a conclusion of better medical care, either. As mentioned above, M always faces patients with more severe injuries or disease than that of S, some of which may be difficult, or even impossible to cure; while patients that visit S probably only take a ailment like a cold or so. So, there would be more uncovered patients in M than in S. Moreover, the number of patients in M is much larger for its size, position and reputation. Therefore, it would be normal for M to have a lower cure rate; but it cannot prove the M's supposed poorer medical quality.
（第一个原因你上边已经说了，可以略说，或者跟上边合并一下，要不你这文章太长了点，跟issue似的）
Thirdly, more employees per patient have nothing to do the treatment quality without considering the level of their medical care and attitude towards the patient, which are not presented in the story, unfortunately. So, this evidence is useless（说没用太绝对了，其实仔细想想还是有用的，要是一个医生照顾10个病人和1个，肯定有区别啊）. In addition, for its free service, S may not undertake any expectation from people; so even offering poor service, S will not receive many complaints. Things are much different in M, where medical services are for charge. Patients keep their watchful eyes on M and are more reliable on it; so any errors may bring serious complaints. As a consequence, with such two pieces of information, it is hasty （换一个吧，arbitrary） to maintain that M's service is worse than that of S.（这你还可以再提一下病人比例问题，病人多自然投诉就多，概率问题）

Furthermore, even though the treatment is worse and cost is higher in M than in S, the author cannot make a conclusion that conditions are the same in other hospitals without any investigation and analysis. The absolute opinion cannot be got unless more evidence is able to bolster it.（这是以点盖面吧，就是说的不太清晰，是不是没时间了。。。其实这儿很重要啊，前面太啰嗦了有点）

In sum, with the unreliable evidence presented in the feature story, the arguer had better not make the statement of the two hospitals. And, most importantly, only when more information of other hospitals is obtained would the final viewpoint be made.

rodgoodUID: 2619326

2# britney0915

语言是有点啰嗦咯，有点长。哪限什么时哦，每次argument都是奔着1小时去了，速度现在是大问题啊~~
谢谢你的点评，如果你有需要修改文章，请及时通知我哈~

rodgoodUID: 2619326

3# hyq533
谢谢青烟红尘的修改，好仔细，感动中……
还有两三天了吧，加油哦。提前祝抽高频哈~