【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT203 Ambition组回收站

lvruochenUID: 2792806

annke写得太快了~~~~~
先发再编辑

annkeUID: 2605122

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: 410-479          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-5-17 18:48:18

In the argument, merely based on research of a single town of Saluda and a nearby city of Megaville, the arguer hastily represent all the situation of smaller, nonprofit hospitals and larger, for-profit hospitals. What's worse, according to comparison between small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, and the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the arguer draws to a conclusion that  the former is more economical and of better quality, which is fairly unwarranted.
First  of all, the average length of a patient's stay in the hospital hardly guarantee anything, considering the factors contributing to a patient's stay. It is not hard imagine, patients who have serious diseases or emergencies incline to go to large for-profit hospital, for whose equipment and faculty are more experienced in handling terrible situations. Accordingly, it is objective situation-serious diseases deserve patients staying longer in hospitals rather than blaming for low quality treatment in large, for-profit hospitals, as the arguer suggests. More importantly, the fact that cure rate among patients in Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital also not sufficient to regard the former is of better quality than the latter, because there are many other elements including, such as the level of diseases as mentioned above. Thus, the two evidence provided by arguer cannot shed light on that small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda has better treatment performance than the larger, for-profit hospitals.
Secondly, even though assuming it is true that small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda has better treatment performance than the larger, for-profit hospitals, this advantage probably cannot recur in other small, nonprofit hospitals in other towns. In general, different towns have different situations, we are reasonable to doubt that the excellent treatment quality in small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda is particular and is not entitled to represent other towns, for which might confronting short-budget, lacking good doctors, or being scarce of advanced equipment. Without additional information, it is totally unconvincing to use the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda to represent all other towns.
Furthermore, even though, at a risk, admitting that small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda widely represent the current conditions of all the small, nonprofit hospital in the town across the country, judging small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda has better treatment performance than the larger, for-profit hospitals is the same ungrounded. As everybody know, larger , for-profit hospitals commonly overshadow the small, non-profit hospitals, thus, the phenomena that small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda has better treatment performance than the larger, for-profit hospitals probably just a particular case. The arguer do not provide enough evidence to justify that other cities' larger, for-profit hospitals are as tragedy as the larger, for-profit hospitals in  Megaville city. Therefore, this argument is unbelievable.

lvruochenUID: 2792806

交晚了
头两天的补上

lvruochenUID: 2792806

203The 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."

50min  609words 写大了

The arguer brought about a view about whether treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals, after comparing and analysing the data of average length of a patient's stay, cure rate, amount of complaints, and employees per patient. Hence the arguer draws a conclusion that smaller, nonprofit hospitals are better and should be turned to when to be treated. Sound as it seems, flaws lie in the statement.

To begin with, the survey conducted remains to be questioned. Based on the vague survey without informing details to us, the conclusion should be regarded as groundless. First, we cannot say it for sure exactly how big or small the two hospitals where the survey came from are. It seems less believable in case that they are actually close in size. We should not agree with the arguer, unless accurate information about the size of those hospitals is given. Second, putting aside the size thing, the cure rate should be given more definitely. What does the arguer mean by saying cure rate here? Cure rate of all kinds of diseases? Or merely some of them? Are those diseases counted long-term diseases that have almost no measure if they are cured? Cure rate in three days? In a week? In a month? Or even for ever? Lacking those important matters, the survey is not trustable. Third, the fact that few complaints came about service at the lical hospital can be convincible, only when the rate of dissatisfied patients of all patients came is made, and compared with that of the bigger, for-profit hospital. Or, sometimes, the fewer complaints can be misleading as a result of fewer people go there. Further researches require to be made.

Even if the survey can be considered as authentic, there is no reason to accept that the higher treatment rate and shorter average length of a patient's stay in hospital can lead to that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. People choose to go to different kinds of hospitals when they are ill in different cases. As we all know, small hospitals in towns, a little bit bad-equipped, are mainly designed to serve people from the nearby villages and the town with less severe diseases, while big hospitals in cities, well-equipped for the most time, are aiming to severe people from a bigger geographic rage with more serve diseases. They are not with the same goal the moment they are constructed. When it comes to severe diseases, which are more frequently to be found in bigger hospitals in cities, the lower cure rate and the longer average length of a patient's stay can be explained easily.

Then, we must say, the arguer has mixed up the conception of a better quality in hospital by measure it by means that emphasize too much more employees per patient. The most complicated matter about the quality of treatment is degraded to such a point that it runs the risk of ruining the standard of treatment. We go to hospital for treatment. Nevertheless, we do not hope to see a lot of doctors and nurses getting around us, we want to see the best treatment made by the best doctors, equipments, and drugs. Those are what we seriously want, instead of how many employees are coming around us. In this light, we can find bigger hospitals can satisfy those needs better. We cannot ignore it.

All in all, the arguer fails to persuade us to believe his idea. To be more impressive, there is still a long way to go for arguer.

xiaohaixxxUID: 2317561

In this story, the author compares hospitals in the town of Saluda with which in the nearby city of Megaville, then the author conclude that smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. However, there are several logical flaws in author’s illustration of the conclusion, and the reasons are as followed:
   First of all, the in this article the author just gave us information that the average length of a patient's stay at the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda is less than at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, but did not provide us any information about the average length of a patient's stay at the small, nonprofit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, or the average length of a patient's stay at the large, for-profit hospital in the town of Saluda. Because Saluda and the nearby city of Megaville are two different areas that may have many factors lead to the comparison that the author assert unreliable, for example the average age of people in Saluda may much lower than people in nearby city of Megaville, so patients in Saluda’s sick are less serious and can recover much faster than people in nearby city of Megaville. Or maybe, the people in Saluda is more care about their health and even a little problem of their body they will go to hospital meanwhile people in the nearby city of Megaville is not. Therefore the comparison here is unreasonable.
Moreover, the author pointed out that the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital, however, at here the author also cannot give any useful illustration to support the author’s conclusion, for the author just gave us the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital and of the Megaville hospital, but did not inform us the cure rate among patients at the small, nonprofit hospital in the Saluda and at the large, for-profit hospital in the Saluda, or the cure rate among patients at the small, nonprofit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville and at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, without these data, we cannot know the difference between treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals.
What’s more, the author also side that the Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. Here the author here made a same mistake as the second flaw that I pointed out, the author use the date of whole kinds of hospital in the town of Saluda and in the nearby city of Megaville to illustrate the difference between two kinds of hospital is obviously unreasonable.
In conclusion, these comparison and data mentioned above cannot support the author’s assertion that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals.

annkeUID: 2605122

In this story[?], the author compares hospitals in the town of Saluda with which in the nearby city of Megaville, then the author conclude that smaller, nonprofit hospitals is[are] more economical and [of better quality than treatment in][of/have better treatment quality than those] larger, for-profit hospitals. However, there are several logical flaws in author’s illustration of the conclusion, and the reasons are as followed[following固定表达]:
   First of all, [the in this article][?] the author just gave[gives] us information that the average length of a patient's stay at [the去掉] small, nonprofit hospital[s前面是average了，后面的对象应该是复数] in the town of Saluda is less than [that] at [the去掉] large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, but [he/she/the author] did[does,否则后面你全部都得保持过去式转引author的话] not provide us any information about the average length of a patient's stay at the small, nonprofit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, or the average length of a patient's stay at the large, for-profit hospital in the town of Saluda[这句话太长了，建议断句。并且，后半句指出问题所在让人不知所云。你是想说具体数字吗？那就直接点也许数据相差不大。但我认为这不是批判重点，重点在与什么造成了当前的逗留时间差异。]. Because Saluda and the nearby city of Megaville are two different areas [that may][这不是so that 的句子。建议：“, so they may…”] have many factors lead[双谓语了，要加ing] to the comparison that the author assert unreliable, for example the average age of people in Saluda may much lower than people in nearby city of Megaville, so patients in Saluda’s sick[illness/disease, sick 只能做表语] are less serious and can [recover][乱搭配，treatment can recover~] much faster than people in nearby city of Megaville. Or[,] maybe[,去掉] the people in Saluda is[are] more [care][双谓语] about their health and even a little [不好，slight/light] problem of their body they will go to hospital[,][注意断句！！] meanwhile people in the nearby city of Megaville is[are] not. Therefore the comparison here is unreasonable.
Moreover, the author [pointed out] that the cure rate [among不好][of] patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice [of] that [of去掉][in前面都是in] the Megaville hospital, however, at here[Chinglish~] the author also cannot give any useful illustration to support [the author’s 啰嗦][the/his or her]conclusion, for [the author] just [gave] us the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital and of the Megaville hospital, but did not inform us the cure rate among patients at the small, nonprofit hospital in the Saluda and at the large, for-profit hospital in the Saluda, or the cure rate among patients at the small, nonprofit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville and at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville[,去掉][.] [Without]without these data, we cannot know the difference between treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. [注意比较级句子。尤其是倍数比较。不要纠结。the cure rate of patients in hospital A is twice as high as that of patients in hospital B.][全部集中在你的句法问题上了，想说明什么都没看明白。]
What’s more, the author also side[?] that the Saluda hospital[用语随便] has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. [Here the author here] [made] [a] same[the same 固定搭配] mistake as the second flaw that I pointed out, the author use the date of whole kinds of hospital in the town of Saluda and in the nearby city of Megaville to illustrate the difference between two kinds of hospital is obviously unreasonable. [乱了。怎么又回到调查问题了？]
In conclusion, these comparison and data mentioned above cannot support the author’s assertion that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals.
[这篇argu的确是比较难叙述，对语言要求也较高，所以，我们应该庆幸问题暴露在考试之前啦~~
论证的三个点抓得不好，叙述不明确。个人认为，这篇argu要批判1样本数量问题，2指出他因，造成average stay差别的有很多因素，并不是医疗条件不好，很可能病情严重，花费很大。3个别不能代替全体。单个s小城不能代替所有小城。单个M大城不能代表所有大城，比较无效。强烈建议保持划逻辑线的习惯。
很显然，xiaohai的长句驾驭能力还欠火候，写到一半，主谓不一，单复不一，时态不一，双谓语，缺乏指代（尤其是比较句）全都出来了。另外，英语对句式结构要求比较高，起承转合必须成分分明，或者有相应的连词，标点，不能一股脑地写下去，否则就是串句和流水句了。我觉得有个小组的翻译帖子挺好的。咱们组也许可以借鉴。]
7# xiaohaixxx