[big fish]-3月8日-Argument203

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

===================================================================================================


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: 370         TIME: 01:00:00          DATE: 2010-3-8 20:36:46


=======================================================================================

Before influxing into small ,nonprofit hospitals for so called more ecnomical and better treatment, we need a deeper thought to this ostensibly well reasoned argument ,in which the conclusion is not strongly supported by the author's assumption that S hosptital is more ecnomical and of better quality than M hosptital. Moreover, this comparison is not able to be well built on the evidences that the author presents.


In the first place ,the average length of a patient's stay is not a significant data to compare the treatment of the two hospitals. A shorter period of time in S hospital may possibly results from many other factors. For example ,if only those who have a minor illness came tho S hospital while other serious ones  went to the bigger M hosptital, the patients certainly need not stay at S hospital for long time. However ,M hospital is on the contary. For this kind of reason , a more high cure rate can't lend a support to the author's judgement that S hospital hold better treatment quality. In additon ,what if the S hospital serves the patients so poorly  that they dislike to stay in S hospital?


Secondly,more employees in a S hospital,as the author says in the argument, does not necessarily means a beteer treatment. A superior hospital is not just decided by how many people in it ,but more by the quality of these employees , the entire hospital's level of technology merit and equipments, the enviroment of its location and so forth. Obviously, the author apears lookover thes factors.As mentioned above, few complaints can also be explained by S hospital's small numbers of patients or its easy assignments rather than its better service.

Finally ,even it's true that S hospital is more ecomomical and of better treatment than M hospital, it can hardly convince us that all small ,nonprofit hospitals outstrip the larger ,for-profit ones. As we know , we can't get any conclusion from solely  a special example. Many suceessful policies work in S  hospital is not likely to be simply copied to another place,let alone for all hospitals.


In sum ,this argument is not convincing for many reasons. Unless the conclusion that small ,nonprofit hospitals are better over bigger,for-profits hospitals is directly proved ,we won't accept it .

ella_dylUID: 2595060

感谢你拍我的文章啊，我帮你看看这篇文章吧~~感觉自己可能还是argu写得稍好些

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

2# ella_dyl
呵呵， 谢谢你来观照~~~你用力拍吧。
其实我的ISSUE和argument都还烂。心急之~~~

ella_dylUID: 2595060

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: 370         TIME: 01:00:00          DATE: 2010-3-8 20:36:46


Before influxing（influx是名词，这个用法不当） into （+the conclusion）small, nonprofit hospitals for so called more economical and better treatment, we need a deeper thought to this ostensibly well reasoned argument, in which the conclusion is not strongly supported by the author's assumption that S hospital is more economical and of better quality than M hospital. Moreover, this comparison is not able to be well built on the evidences that the author presents.
首句不适合用那么长的句子。一般首段要列出结论和前提，以及简要概括论据。

In the first place, the average length of a patient's stay is not a significant data to compare the treatment of the two hospitals. A shorter period of time in S hospital may possibly results from many other factors. For example, if only those who have a minor illness came to S hospital while other serious ones went to the bigger M hospital, the patients certainly need not stay at S hospital for long time. However, M hospital is on the contrary. For this kind of reason, a much higher cure rate can't lend a support to the author's judgment that S hospital hold better treatment quality. In addition, what if the S hospital serves the patients so poorly that they dislike staying in S hospital?

Secondly, more employees (+per patient比较严谨) in a(去掉) S hospital, as the author says in the argument, does not necessarily means a better treatment. A superior hospital is not just decided by how many people in it, but more by the quality of these employees, the entire hospital's level of technology merit and equipments, the environment of its location and so forth. Obviously, the author appears to overlook these factors. As mentioned above, few complaints can also be explained by S hospital's small numbers of patients or its easy assignments rather than its better service.
这段只是单纯的列举，应该适度展开
Finally, even it's true that S hospital is more economical and of better treatment than M hospital, it can hardly convince us that all small, nonprofit hospitals outstrip the larger, for-profit ones. As we know, we can't get any conclusion from solely a special example. Many successful policies work in S hospital is not likely to be simply copied to another place, let alone for all hospitals.

In sum, this argument is not convincing for many reasons. Unless the conclusion that small, nonprofit hospitals are better over bigger, for-profits hospitals is directly proved, we won't accept it.
最近这两天很不走运的生病了，也没及时修改，真是抱歉~~~
总的来说，攻击点没有太大问题，但是有些地方展开不够充分
语言不是特别流畅，拼写语法错误多了一些，这些基础的地方多多注意一些会更好
以上，加油~~

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

修改版：
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: 370         TIME: 01:00:00          DATE: 2010-3-8 20:36:46


=======================================================================================


The author's conclusion that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatmen in larger, for-profit hospitals is a possible case but not strongly convincing. There are several facets in this argument are questionable. The first, three evidence mentioned above is insuficient to support the author's assumption that S hospital is better than M Hospital. In addition, the argument makes a hastly generalization.



The fact that average length of patients' stay in S Hospital is shorter than in M Hospital is far from being enough to indicate that S Hospital holds a better treatment quality. It's possible that most patients turn to S Hospital for some common illness, but for the serious disease, the tend to go to M Hospital. If this is the case, naturally, patients would stay in M Hospital for a more long time but not because of a worse treatment in it. It's also possible that  small S Hospital doesn't have the ability to cure some serious diseases which need a long time treatment. Thus, with out knowing more specific information about those patients and some features of these two hospitals, we can't accept the implicit that S Hospital are really of better treatment quality.



For the same reason, before we know what kinds of diseases the most doctors in S Hospital address, a twice cure rate of S Hospital doesn's lend to suppor to the assumption that it's treatment is of better quality. In addition, the author compares the number of empoyees per patients these two hospitals. However, we can't simply equate better treatment with more employees per patient in a hospital. This argument fails to rule out the possiblity that more employees may result in low effeciency, which are common phenomena in some natioa-owned companies. And the author ignores other factors such as  abilitis of employees, the technical levels that are more important than the number of employees in determining quality of teatment of a hospital. Accordingly, the assumption that S Hospital hold better treatment over M hospital is an unwrranted assumption.

Moreover, granted that S Hospital possess some advanteges in treatment, there is no data available showing that this situation can be applied to all small, non-profit hospitals and large, for-profit hospitals. In fact, before making a such hasty generalization, more thorough invistitgation are indispensible.

Overall, this argument is not reasonable as it stands. To make it convincing, a more complete comparison between S Hospital ans M Hospital, and more invistigation about more hospitals are necessary.