[Big Fish]03月31日Argument203-By mseyj

mseyjUID: 2730706

感觉好多重复用语，好多 it is entirely/quite possible
perhaps…之类

另，请教大家。模板化还是能看出来的，会不会被判抄袭啊？

Argument 203

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.

        In this argument, the arguer attempts to approve that smaller, nonprofit hospital has a better quality and can save more money than larger, for-profit ones. In support of the claim, the author cites the example of two separate hospitalsin Saluda and Megaville by comparing these two hospitals- one is smaller and non-profit, the other one is larger and profit- in several aspects, At the first glance, the argument seems to be reasonable, however, further reflections reveal the argument suffers from several fallacies.

        The threshold problem with the argument is that the author unfairly assumes the days that the average patient stay in the hospital would reveal the quality of hospital. It is entirely possible that patients who go to a smaller and non-profit hospital tend to get light disease. Thus, they could come back to health easily and get out of the hospital earlier than the patients who go to the larger hospital. Lacking information about the situation of the patients in both of the hospitals, the author's assumption is unconvincing.

        Another fundamental problem that might undermine the argument is that the author correlates the number of employees per patient with the quality of the hospital. However, no substantiate evidence could prove the more employees per patient, the higher quality the hospital has. Perhaps, due to the lower quality of the hospital, it needs more employees. The large number of employees is just the reflection of inefficient work.

        Moreover, few complaints dose not necessarily equates to the content of the patients. It is quite possible that the number of patients who go to the smaller and non-profit hospital is few, and they do not demand this kind of hospital to be very effective because the hospitals are non-profit.

         Last but not least, the author draws a hasty conclusion through only two hospitals. Even the author's claim about the hospitals in Saluda and Megaville is correct; only two hospitals could not be representative of all of these two kinds of hospitals. Perhaps, the results of hospitals in other areas are opposite. Providing no more information and investigation about a more significant number of hospitals, the author's conclusion is unjustifiable.

          To sum up, the argument's conclusion is not well-reasoned because the example it cites does not lend strong credence to it. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should present more information about the quality of these two hospitals, and investigate a significant number of samples.

topranUID: 2310216

1# mseyj

Argument 203

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.

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

        In this argument, the arguer attempts to approve that smaller, nonprofit hospital has a(去掉) better quality and can save more money than larger, for-profit ones(one,因为前面的hospital是单的). In support of the claim, the author cites the example of two separate hospitalsin Saluda and Megaville (我觉得应该另起一句)by (By) comparing these two hospitals- one is smaller and non-profit, the other one(one多余) is larger and profit- in several aspects, At the first glance, the argument seems to be reasonable, however, further reflections reveal the argument suffers from several fallacies.

        The threshold problem with the argument is that the author unfairly assumes the days that the average patient stay in the hospital would reveal the quality of hospital. It is entirely possible that patients who go to a smaller and non-profit hospital tend to get light disease (I am not sure this is a right expression). Thus, they could come back to health easily(这样表达好像有欠妥当, recover? be cured?) and get out of the hospital (I think may be "leave hospital" is better) earlier than the patients who go to the larger hospital. Lacking information about the situation of the patients in both of the hospitals, the author's assumption is unconvincing.

        Another fundamental problem that might undermine the argument is that the author correlates the number of employees per patient with the quality of the hospital. However, no substantiate evidence could prove the more employees per patient, (while) the higher quality the hospital has (will be). Perhaps, due to the lower quality of the hospital, it needs more employees. (I understand your point, but I don't thik you express it in the right way.) . (Thus ) The large number of employees is just the reflection of inefficient work. (So...)(a sentence for conclusion)

        Moreover, few complaints dose not necessarily equates (粗心阿,前面都does 了) to the content of the patients. It is quite possible that the number of patients who go to the smaller and non-profit hospital is few(换一个, 前面都用过few了), and they do not demand (require?) this kind of hospital to be very effective because the hospitals are non-profit.

         Last but not least, the author draws a hasty conclusion through only two hospitals. Even the author's claim about the hospitals in Saluda and Megaville is correct; only two hospitals could not be representative (my darling,语法!!!) of all of these two kinds of hospitals. Perhaps, the results of hospitals in other areas are opposite. Providing no more information and investigation about a more significant number of hospitals, the author's conclusion is unjustifiable.

          To sum up, the argument's conclusion is not well-reasoned because the example it cites does not lend strong credence to it. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should present more information about the quality of these two hospitals, and investigate a significant number of samples.

逻辑通顺,但语言欠缺

mseyjUID: 2730706

非常感谢Topran 这么耐心与细心的 修改！
真的， 语言太欠缺了， 只可惜 我的时日已不长了。。。
一时半伙 也不知怎么提高
哎。。。。