argument203, 医院质量比较，有些问题请指教

小黄瓜的解夏UID: 2567767

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."
WORDS: 417
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-2-23 23:41:59

Basing on the comparison between the small, nonprofit hospital in Saluda and the large, for-profit hospital in Megavile, supposing that the former one is better than the other, the author concludes that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and better than that in larger, for-profit hospitals. However, the comparison made by the author is incomplete, and this analysis is weak with several other critical flaws.

To begin with, the average length of a patients' stay is not a good indication of quality of treatment. It is entirely possible that most of patients who catch serious diseases are more inclined to choose the large hospital, while those who do not have big problem in health choose the small one. And this difference, rather than the quality of treatment, leads to the longer length of stay. After all, the more serious the disease is, the more time is needed for treatment and recovery. Similarly, the author also fails to prove that the cure rate among patients could accurately represent the actual quality of treatment in the hospital. Common sense informs us that it is more difficult that people with serious disease could recover.

Moreover, we could find neither concrete nor sufficient evidence to substantiate the assumption that the more employees could reflect better quality of treatment. Perhaps it is because the working staff in the hospital in Saluda is less effective than those in the hospital in Megavile that the smaller hospital have to keep more employees to guarantee its normal operation. If so, this evidence presented by the author contradicts his assumption that the smaller hospital has better quality of treatment.

In addition, the author fails to inform us the charges in these two hospitals, thus it is impossible to evaluate whether the smaller hospital is a more economical choice than the larger one. For that matter, the author's conclusion loses its credibility.

Even assuming that the author could substantiate all of the foregoing assumptions, it is still groundless to apply the result of the previous comparison to all hospitals. Unless the author could provide evidence to demonstrate that these two hospitals' conditions are representative enough of the whole general groups' condition, the conclusion would still remain untenable.

To sum up, the analysis lacks credibility as it stands. To strengthen and solidify it, the author ought to provide more information to make a comprehensive and thorough comparison between the two hospitals. Moreover, other hospitals' conditions aside from those presented in the argument should also be evaluated.

模考了一下才发现速度的不足，虽然也听说过字数不决定一切的说法，但是我觉得字数多总归能说清楚一点，像这篇我速度不足导致complaints那个点没有攻击到，杯具了，之后会注意。
现在自己很困惑觉得每段说理都特别不充分，而且存在一个意思反复说上好几遍的问题，不知道各位看了这一篇之后有什么意见和建议。。。
另外，有的文章错误一多就有点不知道该怎么派兵布局了，不知道各位对我这篇的错误攻击的顺序有什么看法，或者更好的建议，谢谢。

小黄瓜的解夏UID: 2567767

顶顶

ringtailbunnyUID: 2579853

大致看一下啊。正好今天上午也写了两片a。
读完题目觉得错误太多了。。。这种题目还是第一次看到。攻击的点太多了也不是个事啊，看之前先我找出来的点。
1.以两个医院的比较得出所有类型医院的比较结果。
这个是总体的。
2.住院时间长可能说明治疗的负责任。同时可能病不同。
3.治疗率可能是针对不同的病，小医院只治感冒，大医院全是癌症
4.抱怨是老问题了。
5.对每个病人的医生多可能是因为病人不喜欢那个医院都不去那看病。
这个是对治疗效果的
6.不赢利医院不一定更经济。因为他不能自食其力，需要政府的支持，就是花的纳税人的钱。提供同样的治疗手段需要同样的花销。
最后针对经济。
一共6点。自己权衡。找4点左右就可以了。

Basing on the comparison between the small, nonprofit hospital in Saluda and the large, for-profit hospital in Megavile, supposing that the former one is better than the other, the author concludes that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and better than that in larger, for-profit hospitals.（我觉得前两个现在分词的因果关系看不出来，读起来像并列，改成两句话吧。） However, the comparison made by the author is incomplete, and this analysis is weak with several other critical flaws.

To begin with, the average length of a patients' stay is not a good indication of quality of treatment. It is entirely possible that most of patients who catch serious diseases are more inclined to choose the large hospital, while those who do not have big problem in health choose the small one. And this difference, rather than the quality of treatment, leads to the longer length of stay. After all, the more serious the disease is, the more time is needed for treatment and recovery. Similarly, the author also fails to prove that the cure rate among patients could accurately represent the actual quality of treatment in the hospital. Common sense informs us that it is more difficult that people with serious disease could recover.

Moreover, we could find neither concrete nor sufficient evidence to substantiate the assumption that the more employees could reflect better quality of treatment. Perhaps it is because the working staff in the hospital in Saluda is less effective than those in the hospital in Megavile that the smaller hospital have to keep more employees to guarantee its normal operation. If so, this evidence presented by the author contradicts his assumption that the smaller hospital has better quality of treatment.

In addition, the author fails to inform us the charges in these two hospitals, thus it is impossible to evaluate whether the smaller hospital is a more economical choice than the larger one. For that matter, the author's conclusion loses its credibility.

Even assuming that the author could substantiate all of the foregoing assumptions, it is still groundless to apply the result of the previous comparison to all hospitals. Unless the author could provide evidence to demonstrate that these two hospitals' conditions are representative enough of the whole general groups' condition, the conclusion would still remain untenable.

To sum up, the analysis lacks credibility as it stands. To strengthen and solidify it, the author ought to provide more information to make a comprehensive and thorough comparison between the two hospitals. Moreover, other hospitals' conditions aside from those presented in the argument should also be evaluated.
没例子。点之间的关系也没抓住。觉得就像是一直往上面堆的。。。
字数不够的话就少打个点。然后至少把2个点说透。要有广度，更要有深度。当然，我不知道不说透的光列出6，7个错误是什么结果，不过6分范文里我没见着。。
个人意见，我意见一直比较刻薄。见谅。

小黄瓜的解夏UID: 2567767

3# ringtailbunny
谢谢

小黄瓜的解夏UID: 2567767

3# ringtailbunny
另外 不是很明白“没有例子”的意思，是说列举的possibility不够么？

小黄瓜的解夏UID: 2567767

3# ringtailbunny
你看开头加个then在supposing之前的话会不会比较有承接关系一点
我写的时候心里想的顺序是这样的
先攻击他并列列举的n个证据去比较了小医院和大医院的好坏，然后得出结论说比较不成立，之后再攻击即使以上成立也犯了misapplied generalization的错误 不过确实这后面一点时间不够没有说清楚 你觉得这样的逻辑顺序有什么问题么，，，或者是段落之间结构没有清晰地反映这个顺序？

missingusaUID: 2625832

请lz注意正确的发帖格式, 相关内容可以参考这个帖子:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1042201

修改完后, 请通过站内短消息pm我一下, 谢谢^^

ringtailbunnyUID: 2579853

例子的话多看范文怎写的。