Argument203

CynthiaMomoLeeUID: 2587828

This argument is well-present, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the small, nonprofit hospital in Saluda, with the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville in the following respects: the average length of a patient's stay, the cure rate, the number of employee serving to per patient and of the complaints, the arguer's conclusion that treatment in the hospital like the former is more economical and of better quality than that in latter hospital seems logical.

However, the news is failing to consider a strong relationship between the average length of a patient's stay and the quality of the hospital. Obviously, there are some other alternatives to make the time of people's stay in hospital short. Such alternatives include that the individuals who come to the small hospital are just caught in not serious ail or cold. If they are sent to a bigger place to treat, perhaps the time will be still two days or less. What's more, any hospital has the capability of dealing with light trouble in spite of a small place. Accordingly, the cure rate among patients is higher naturally.

Even assuming that the shorter days of people's stay and the higher cure rate affect the better quality in treatment from the small hospital, the two additional aspects upon which the speaker relies are also indefensible. First, more employees to care about per patient might result from the fewer people coming to small hospital. Subsequently, the fewer patients, to some extent, would reduce the number of complaints. Lacking some other potential factors accounting for the standard of a hospital, the author cannot confidently draw the conclusion that choosing a small. non-profit
hospital is better than going to a larger, for-profit one.

However, even all the reason as the speaker stands before. We cannot validate the above recommendation. More consideration should be taken into valuing the quality of a hospital. We should pay attention to whether the hospital owns such doctors full of knowledge, skill and experience. And whether the hospital can afford more modern equipment in treatment should also be considered by people.

Overall, the factors as the newspaper presented seems reliable since they would reflect the better quality of other elements might be ignored. But before any final decision are made about, which kind of hospitals would provide more economical and better treatment, the speaker should evaluate all possible alternatives and analyze any cause leading to higher quality in patients' treatment.

gaobaoayu123UID: 2740997

This argument is well-present, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the small, nonprofit hospital in Saluda, with the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville in the following respects: the average length of a patient's stay, the cure rate, the number of employee serving to per patient and of the complaints, the arguer's conclusion that treatment in the hospital like the former is more economical and of better quality than that in latter hospital seems logical.

However, the news is failing to consider a strong relationship between the average length of a patient's stay and the quality of the hospital. Obviously, there are some other alternatives to make the time of people's stay in hospital short. Such alternatives include that the individuals who come to the small hospital are just caught in not serious ail or cold. If they are sent to a bigger place to treat, perhaps the time will be still two days or less. What's more, any hospital has the capability of dealing with light trouble in spite of a small place. Accordingly, the cure rate among patients is higher naturally.（为什么，我觉得治愈率是两倍没有说明任何问题，因为不是同一种病的治愈率，，就像我们知道的有些校医院根本拒收那些难治愈的病人）

Even assuming that the shorter days of people's stay and the higher cure rate affect the better quality in treatment from the small hospital, the two additional aspects upon which the speaker relies are also indefensible. First, more employees to care about per patient might result from the fewer people coming to small hospital.（这个还可以加上并不是越多医生治病效果就越好） Subsequently, the fewer patients, to some extent, would reduce the number of complaints.（我觉得如果加上   也许大医院的投诉率其实比小医院的低  会更好） Lacking some other potential factors accounting for the standard of a hospital, the author cannot confidently draw the conclusion that choosing a small. non-profit
hospital is better than going to a larger, for-profit one.

However, even all the reason as the speaker stands before. We cannot validate the above recommendation. （我觉得得出结论的那句话是属于以偏概全----即使上面全都成立也只是证明了S比M的医院好 并不能说明 所有的小型不盈利都比大型盈利好，，然后再加上后面的论证就更充分了）More consideration should be taken into valuing the quality of a hospital. We should pay attention to whether the hospital owns such doctors full of knowledge, skill and experience. And whether the hospital can afford more modern equipment in treatment should also be considered by people.（这个论证很好）

Overall, the factors as the newspaper presented seems reliable since they would reflect the better quality of other elements might be ignored. But before any final decision are made about, which kind of hospitals would provide more economical and better treatment, the speaker should evaluate all possible alternatives and analyze any cause leading to higher quality in patients' treatment.

开头结尾写的不错，其他就是论据可以更完善些， 不过考场上写成这样应该就很不错了~