Phoenix写作小组5号argument203

kusinerlooUID: 2608701

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."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grounding on these facts that shorter time of patient's stay, higher cure rate, more employees per patient and fewer complaints about service in Saluda hospital. The arguer synthesizes these facts and accordingly concludes that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. Although the conclusion seems reasonable, however, on further reflection, it reveals severals logical fallacies, as discussed below.

To begin with, this is nowhere more illegitimate than on the assumption that the shorter time of patient's stay and higher cure rate are reflect the higher treatment quality. Although the average length of a patient’s stay of Saluda hospital is much shorter than that of Megavile hospital, it is very likely that Saluda hospital has no enough equipments and doctors for the serious patients. Thus, serious patients have to go to the larger, pro-profit hospitals to attain an appropriate treatment. As a result, the Saluda hospital probably merely treats the patients with light or normal diseases. Generally speaking, treat the light or normal diseases need shorter time than serious diseases.

Furthermore, it is presumptuous to judge the treatment quality of hospital according to the cure rate. As discussed above, Saluda hospital’s primary customers probably are the patients with light and normal diseases, it is natural that Saluda hospital have a higher cure rate. Perhaps in certain diseases, the treatment quality of Megavile is much higher than that of Saluda hospital.

Finally, what is ridiculous is the quality of treatment is in proportion to the amount of employees per patient. Saluda hospital is a non-profit hospital; it is entirely possible that more doctors of Saluda hospital are greenhorns who cannot competent for these jobs. And thus, Saluda hospital probably cannot ensure a better treatment quality although it has more employees per patient.

In sum, unless a more comprehensive study is taken to research the true quality of these two hospitals, we cannot draw a conclusion that treatment in smaller, non-profit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals.

hhfboyUID: 2749089

1# kusinerloo
"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."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounding on these facts (facts 的话还能argue吗? 5号
你改我第一篇的时候的批注!) that shorter time of patient's stay, higher cure rate, more employees per patient and fewer complaints about service in Saluda hospital.(这里是个状语从句单独成句?) The arguer synthesizes these facts and accordingly concludes that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. Although the conclusion seems reasonable, however, on further reflection, it reveals severals logical fallacies, as discussed below.
To begin with, this is nowhere more illegitimate than on the assumption that the shorter time of patient's stay and higher cure rate are reflect(应该是意味着的意思比较好吧, indicate) the higher treatment quality. Although the average length of a patient’s stay of Saluda hospital is much shorter than that of Megavile hospital, it is very likely that Saluda hospital has no enough equipments and doctors for the serious patients. Thus, serious patients have to go to the larger, pro-profit hospitals to attain an appropriate treatment. As a result, the Saluda hospital probably merely treats the patients with light or normal diseases. Generally speaking, (to) treat the light or normal diseases needs shorter time than serious diseases.
Furthermore, it is presumptuous to judge the treatment quality of hospital according to the cure rate. (和上面一个攻击点
有些重复了) As discussed above, Saluda hospital’s primary customers probably are the patients with light and normal diseases, it is natural that Saluda hospital have a higher cure rate. Perhaps in certain diseases, the treatment quality of Megavile is much higher than that of Saluda hospital.
Finally, what is ridiculous is the quality of treatment is in proportion to the amount of employees per patient. Saluda hospital is a non-profit hospital; it is entirely possible that more doctors of Saluda hospital are greenhorns who cannot competent(这里应该用动词吧) for these jobs. And thus, Saluda hospital probably cannot ensure a better treatment quality although it has more employees per patient.
In sum, unless a more comprehensive study is taken to research the true quality of these two hospitals,
(To better evaluate the assumption, I need more information about the quality of these two hospitals.) we cannot draw a (hasty) conclusion that treatment in smaller, non-profit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals.

点评:
(1)
可能是第二和第三个错误重复的缘故, 指出的错误显得少一点了,这里可以攻击的另一点就是这些数据都是模糊数据,比如比例.. 实际的治好总人数S 比M大? 还有我划红那里few complaints 可能有其他原因造成的few complaint的.
(2)
感觉你的语句在写issue的…argument每个错误完了可以做个小结.
(3)
5号你语言是没问题的
不过这篇argument感觉的确不好
加油
与君共勉!