argument 203 球拍，啥也不说了，最后一周 by charles

charlesAFAUID: 2750393

题目：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."
字数：462
用时：00:30:00
日期：2010/2/18 0:47:09

Grounding on the following facts that a shorter time patient
stayed, a higher cute rate and more employee per patient with fewer complaints in Saluda hospital, the arguer concludes that nonprofit hospital is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospital. It appears reasonable and logical. However, on further reflection, it reveals several hidden fallacies. The reasons are stated as follow.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that the shorter time the patient stay, the better the hospital is. Although it is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate the crucial assumption. It is very likely that non-profit hospital does not examine patient carefully. Or perhaps, they find no enough equipment or place for the serious patients and therefore the patients must change hospital. As a result, there is shorter time which patients stay in non-profit hospital. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed, unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.

In the second place, the arguer assumes that a higher cure rate amounts to a better service. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and arguer does not provide any evidence to confirm this assumption. It might be the case that the population in the town where the non-profit hospital located in is fewer than the city's. Also, the non-profit hospital does not check patients very carefully and even the patients are not cured completely, they regard them as healthy man. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other possible explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.

Even if the evidence turn out to support the foregoing assumption, the arguer just simply assumes that more employees per patient and fewer complaints means a higher serving quality and neither any conclusive and scientific evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is entirely possible that more employees in the non-profit hospital are greenhorns who cannot competent for these demanding job and thus there is no guarantee that they can provide a better service. Meanwhile, we should consider the composition of the employees in S. What if most employees are cleaner or manager which turns out to have no experience in cure? And these more employees prove nothing but the hospital is low efficient. In terms of complaints, perhaps, the patients come to the non-profit hospital are all poor man. So they are reluctant to report a complaint. On the contrary, the patients in for-profit hospital are likely to pick up small mistakes because of their high requirement. And there probably have more patients in the for-profit hospital due to the hospital's good reputation. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is unavailable or none of them is able to sustain.

Overall, the
argument, while it seems very plausible at first, contains several flaws mentioned above. A more specific statement about the quality between two hospitals is needed in order to make the argument forceful. To further improve the conclusion, the arguer should pay more attention on whether it is economical for the non-profit hospital. What if there is an expensive pay for medicine and poor service in the non-profit hospital?

plukaUID: 2721764

Grounding on the following facts that a shorter time patient 
stayed, a higher cute rate and more employee per patient with fewer complaints in Saluda hospital, the arguer concludes that nonprofit hospital is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospital. It appears reasonable and logical. However, on further reflection, it reveals several hidden fallacies. The reasons are stated as follow.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that the shorter time the patient stay, the better the hospital is. Although it is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate the crucial assumption. It is very likely that non-profit hospital does not examine patient carefully. (这一条并不能直接跟住院时间短联系上。检查不仔细跟出院快还是有区别的。你下一段的“Also, the non-profit hospital does not check patients very carefully and even the patients are not cured completely, they regard them as healthy man”倒是不错的理由，可以说于是病人就被赶出院了= =）Or perhaps, they find no（not) enough equipment or place for the serious patients and therefore the patients must change hospital. As a result, there is shorter time which patients stay in non-profit hospital. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed, unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.

In the second place, the arguer assumes that a higher cure rate amounts to a better service. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and arguer does not provide any evidence to confirm this assumption. It might be the case that the population in the town where the non-profit hospital located in is fewer than the city's. Also, the non-profit hospital does not check patients very carefully（这个可能在上段也出现过，是否有些新的比较好呢） and even the patients are not cured completely, they regard them as healthy man. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other possible explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.

Even if the evidence turn out to support the foregoing assumption（个人以为让步的意义在于为后续攻击铺路。但此处的让步似没有这个功能，而仅在于提醒上文观点等。私以为不让也罢）, the arguer just simply assumes （这里语气不够鲜明观点不够突出。看完此句直到你的意思是arguer的假设过于简单直接，不妨添上mistakenly等更清晰表意的副词阐明你的态度）that more employees per patient and fewer complaints means a higher serving quality and neither any conclusive and scientific evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is entirely possible that more employees in the non-profit hospital are greenhorns who cannot competent for these demanding job and thus there is no guarantee that they can provide a better service. Meanwhile, we should consider the composition of the employees in S. What if most employees are cleaner or manager which turns out to have no experience in cure?（不是没有治疗经验，而是根本不会去当医生吧！若写他们没有经验，就显得与上句greenhorns的理由相似，重复了）And these more employees prove nothing but the hospital is low efficient. In terms of complaints, perhaps, the patients come to the non-profit hospital are all poor man. So they are reluctant to report a complaint.（两句之间联系不太紧密。穷人就不抱怨？可以加些解释） On the contrary, the patients in for-profit hospital are likely to pick up small mistakes because of their high requirement. And there probably have more patients in the for-profit hospital due to the hospital's good reputation. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is unavailable or none of them is able to sustain.

Overall, the argument, while it seems very plausible at first, contains several flaws mentioned above. A more specific statement about the quality between two hospitals is needed in order to make the argument forceful. To further improve the conclusion, the arguer should pay more attention on whether it is economical for the non-profit hospital. What if there is an expensive pay for medicine and poor service in the non-profit hospital?（问句……这是别致的结尾，还是没有写完？= =）

先感叹一下字数。俺总是在四百出头徘徊。
粗粗看了一下，想法均在文中标出，若有错请包涵。另外如果有空欢迎指教一下俺的阿狗，意见即可，谢谢~
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1061664-1-1.html

charlesAFAUID: 2750393

Grounding on the following facts that a shorter time patient
stayed, a higher cute rate and more employee per patient with fewer complaints in Saluda hospital, the arguer concludes that nonprof ...
pluka 发表于 2010-2-18 17:10

It is very likely that non-profit hospital does not examine patient carefully. (这一条并不能直接跟住院时间短联系上。检查不仔细跟出院快还是有区别的

It is very likely that non-profit hospital only cure patients with a minor illness such cold, fever and the like. On the contrary, the patients with serious illness will go directly to the city's hospital, because they cannot trust the non-profit hospital.

have no experience in cure?（不是没有治疗经验，而是根本不会去当医生吧！若写他们没有经验，就显得与上句greenhorns的理由相似，重复了
30% of these employees turn out to be cleaners or managers which cannot treat or care for patients.

perhaps, the patients come to the non-profit hospital are all poor man. So they are reluctant to report a complaint.（两句之间联系不太紧密。穷人就不抱怨？可以加些解释）
They have no reason to pick up faults about these free doctors which are voluntarily helping them.