【Big Fish】3月8日Argument203-By rachelwang712

rachelwang712UID: 2757860

Argument No.203

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."

1治疗时间长短不代表治疗效果好坏，可能短的反而治疗效果差，或者病情需要更多时间的住院
2治愈率也可能与病情有关，M的病人可能多是严重的病情难以治愈
3每一个病人的员工数不代表更好的照顾，employee并一定是指医术高超的医生，可能都是比较技术差的

The feature, though well-presented, is weak in its reasoning. The author's carelessness in attributing better quality of hospitical service to shorter stay, cure rate and amount of employees per patient ans complaints without include necessary information undermines his argument.

To begin with, the length of stay is not able to indicate whether the treatment patients receive is better or worse. It is possible that the patients Megaville treats are in worse condition, suffering more severe diseases than Saluda. As a consequence, naturally they tend to stay longer in hospital for medical care. If that is the case, one can not argue that Megaville provides worse service than Saluda. Also, chances are that patients in Saluda receive only general check and are told to go home without much treatment while in Megaville they are given thorough check and asked to stay if needed. Obviously this leads to another story where Megaville is surely superior to Saluda.

Furthermore, the cure rate the arguer cites does not support his point at all. Maybe people with minor diseases tend to choose Saluda as it is nearer to their homes but those who suffer severe diseases will go to Megaville for better service. Certainly the latter are much more difficult to be cured than the former, which can be the possible explanation for the difference between the cure rate of the two hospitals. Actually cure rate should not imply the level of medical care in hospitals unless situation of diseases in patients is taken into consideration.

Finally, despite more employees serving one patient and few complaints, it does not necessarily mean that people are more satisfied with Saluda. For one thing, the arguer only mentions the number of employees rather than doctors. If most of the staff in Saluda are not professionals, even they are larger in number, they still cannot treat the patient properly and effectively. When it comes to Megaville, it is probable that although the size of staff is smaller, they are mainly excellent doctors, who give patients more suitable medical care. For another, admittedly Saluda has few complaints but odds are that complaints about Megaville are even fewer since the arguer never talks about it in the feature. Therefore, these stastistics cannot be evidence for his view.

To conclude, in order to make his argument more convincing, the arguer needs to add in more information addressing the possibilities mentioned above. Without adequate consideration of reasons other hospitals themselves, any conclusion shall never to be reached rushly.

BobbieZZUID: 2756583

The feature, though well-presented, is weak in its reasoning. The author's carelessness in attributing better quality of hospitical(hospitals) service to shorter stay, cure rate and amount of employees per patient ans(and) complaints without include necessary information undermines his argument.

To begin with, the length of stay is not able to indicate whether the treatment patients receive is better or worse. It is possible that the patients Megaville treats are in worse condition, suffering more severe diseases than Saluda. As a consequence, naturally they tend to stay longer in hospital for medical care. If that is the case, one can not argue that Megaville provides worse service than Saluda. Also, chances are that patients in Saluda receive only general check and are told to go home without much treatment while in Megaville they are given thorough check and asked to stay if needed. Obviously this leads to another story where Megaville is surely superior to Saluda.

Furthermore, the cure rate the arguer cites does not support his point at all. Maybe people with minor diseases tend to choose Saluda as it is nearer to their homes but those who suffer severe diseases will go to Megaville for better service. Certainly the latter are much more difficult to be cured than the former, which can be the possible explanation for the difference between the cure rate(s) of the two hospitals. Actually cure rate should not imply the level of medical care in hospitals unless situation of diseases in patients is taken into consideration.

Finally, despite more employees serving one patient and few complaints, it does not necessarily mean that people are more satisfied with Saluda. For one thing, the arguer only mentions the number of employees rather than doctors. If most of the staff in Saluda are(is) not professionals, even they are larger in number, they still cannot treat the patient properly and effectively. When it comes to Megaville, it is probable that although the size of staff is smaller, they are mainly excellent doctors, who give patients more suitable medical care. For another, admittedly Saluda has few complaints but odds are that complaints about Megaville are even fewer since the arguer never talks about it in the feature. Therefore, these stastistics(statistics) cannot be evidence for his view.

To conclude, in order to make his argument more convincing, the arguer needs to add in more information addressing the possibilities mentioned above. Without adequate consideration of reasons other hospitals themselves, any conclusion shall never to be reached rushly(rashly).
除了一些拼写的小问题，语言逻辑和谬误都很好。很清晰