【1010G精英组】Argument203 F组回收站

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

限时写作第五篇：Argument203
一天一篇，作文直接跟帖，修改直接跟帖
5月18日上交+批改

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."

发帖参考：总贴地址    F组素材积累库地址

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

small, nonprofit hospital(S)--1) 2 days 2) cure rate-- twice that of M  
more employees per patient  few complaints about service
large, for-profit hospital(M) ---6days
-----S is more economical and of better quality than M


This author concludes that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. In comparison to the large, for-profit hospital in the town of Megaville, he points, the small nonprofit hospital in the nearby city of Saluda holds certain advantages, for example, the average length of a patient’s stay, the cure rate, more employees per patient and fewer complaints about the service. From my perspective, the argument suffers a false analogy which would probably mislead the audience and therefore lead to a wrong conclusion.

First, the author mentions the average length of a patient’s stay between the two hospitals: an average of two days for the Saluda hospital and six days for the Megaville hospital. Nevertheless, it does not take into account that the Saluda hospital is more economical and better than the Megaville hospital. It is highly possible that the nearby and larger Megaville hospital has more high-tech facilities and leading experts for dealing with difficult and complicated medical cases, while the smaller Saluda hospital would send the patient home if they are incapable to handle the disease. And it is also possible that the principle of Saluda hospital is to deal specifically with emergency cases and this kind of patient would stay shorter in hospital. Therefore, considering the patients’ conditions and the medical treatment resources, that the average length of a patient’s stay could not be a sufficient indicator to measure whether the hospital is economical or the medical care is of better quality.

Second, the author indicates the cure rate among patients in Saluda hospital is about twice that of Megaville, but he could not provide enough information about the patients’ conditions. Maybe the Saluda hospital is merely to treat the emergent or small cases such as diarrhea, fracture, bleeding, allergy, skin disease and so forth, yet Megaville is specialized in severe illness like AIDS or cancers. Thus we would deduct that the so-called lower cute rate in Saluda is the result of accepting minor patients suffering serious diseases. From this point, the author fails again to maintain his assertion.

Further, does that more employees per patient in Saluda hospital amounts to better medical service quality? The answer would probably no -- the quantity of employees per patient is not necessarily an indicator of better quality care: for instance, the Saluda hospital may employ more administrative staff rather than the doctors and nurses who would actually treat the medical problems of each patient.

Last, what caused the fewer complaints about service in Saluda hospital? Does it mean its service truly satisfy most of the patients? Perhaps the cases in Saluda are very minor and meanwhile, the average period for patients to stay in hospital is much shorter than that in Megaville;as a result, patients have less opportunity to complain for themselves.

To sum up, the author fails to offer more sufficient information to support his argument. This hasty conclusion would mislead the public and probably would do serious damage to Megaville’s reputation.

lxin333UID: 2650844

两个医院不可能代表所有医院

让步
逗留时间不是good indication
不知道患病的程度也不知道去医院的人数
无法评估
不好比较治愈率

对应平均医务人员不能说明服务好
反而可能说明效率低


In this argument, the author claims thattreatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of betterquality than that in large, for-profit ones. To bolster his conclusion, theauthor cites the following data to compare with the Saluda hospital and the Megavillehospital. However, the un justified conclusion of the author is undermined by ascrutinization.


To begin with, the author illogicallyassumes that the Saluda hospital represent the small nonprofit hospitals andthe Megaville hospital the large for-profit hospitals. The author unfairly gaveout his conclusion by the only comparisons between the Saluda and the Megavillehospoital. On one hand, the situation of the Saluda hospital may be entirelydifferent from the other small nonprofit hospitals and this case will happen tothe Megaville as well. On the other hand, the data of unrepresentative samplesis insufficient to reveal any facts, nor to mention the nonsensical conclusion.


Even assume that the two hospitalsrepresent the two kinds of hospitals, the author unfairly assumes that ashorter hospital stay indicates an efficient recovery and thus better quality.It is entirely possible that the Saluda hospital is large enough to keeppatients as long as it should to ensure their fully rehabilitation. Perhaps thehospital sends the patients home prematurely in order to free up for otherpatients. Since the author didn’t take many possibilities into account, it is ahasty generalization to claims that the shorter average stay indicates that theSaluda hospital provides better quality than the Megaville hospital.


In addition, it is also absurd toconclude that the Saluda hospital provide better quality than the Megaville hospitalby the mere fact that the rate of cure at the Saluda hospital is higher for thefollowing reasons: It is entirely possible that more people who goes to theSaluda hospital are with a curable problems than the Megaville patients do.Another possibility is that the number of Megaville patients is larger than theSaluda’s, and the higher rate of cure can be explained by the reason that eventhe number of cure is as same as the Saluda or even larger, the rate of cure isstill lower because the Micaville hospital received much more patients. Withoutruling out other possible explanations for the higher rate, the author cannotdraw the rational conclusion.


Moreover, a higher employee-patient ratioat Saluda is insufficient prove the better quality of treatment. The competenceof the employees weigh much with the number of the employees. Besides, it isvery likely that the larger number of the employees of Saluda hospital reflectits organizational inefficiency.


Finally, the weak evidence of the Saludahospital receives fewer patient complaints than Micaville’s hospital provenothing. The author fails to consider that the Micaville is larger than theSaluda hospital and naturally may receives more complaints even though the twohospitals’ quality are totally same. Also, the Micaville’s staff openlyencourage patients to feedback while the Saluda’s staff ignore the complaints.If it is the case, the small nonprofit hospitals may concern less with thepatients’ satisfaction than the large for-profit ones.


In summary, the data cited by the authoramount to weak evidence that the author’s conclusion. To strengthen thearguments, the author must prove that the two hospitals representative to thetwo kinds of hospital. To better access the argument, I would need to know thepercentage of the Micaville patients who suffer from curable problems and thatof the Saluda hospital. Also, I need detail information about the number ofpatients and complaints of each hospital.

xmaszztUID: 2796708

严重超时。。。
In this argument, the author asserts that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. To support his conclusion, the author compared a small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda with a large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but a close scrutiny reveals that it contains several erroneous logical relations and is therefore unpersuasive.

First, the average length of a patient’s stay in the small, nonprofit hospital is tow day and at the large, for-profit hospital; the average patient stay is six days. This comparison can not indicate that treatment in small hospital is more economical than treatment in large hospital. Perhaps patients in the small hospital have not recovered after two days but patients in the large hospital have a good treatment and get well after six days. Or perhaps many of the patients in the large hospital are difficult to cure, such as the cancer, fracture, heart disease, or even the AIDS—it is necessary to take a long time to cure these diseases—while perhaps the patients in the small hospital have minor ailments, such as cold—tow days seems a long time to cure a cold in hospital. So I can not accept the author’s point by this simple comparison.

Second, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital also can not illuminate the quality between the two hospitals. Mentioned above, the degree of difficulty of ailments might be different; it is certain to cure a cold in the small hospital, but it is hard to say to heal an AIDS in the large hospital. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author still can not persuade me to accept his assertion.

Third, the author says 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 also can not indicate the quality of the small hospital is better than that in the large hospital. Perhaps there is little number of patients in the small hospital while the large hospital has a great number of patients because of its high medical standard. And few complaints do not mean expressed satisfaction; perhaps the small hospital did not set up a complain institution so It is not convenient to complain for patients.

Even assuming that treatment in Saluda hospital is more economical and of better quality than treatment in Megaville hospital the author can not assert other small, nonprofit hospitals are better than large, for-profit hospital. Perhaps Saluda hospital is the best small hospital in the world while Megaville hospital is the worst. Without more detail and statistics, these two hospitals are not representative. For this matter, the author also can not achieve his conclusion.

In sum, the author’s assertion that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide more evidence, such as the details of the two hospitals. To better assess the problem, I would also need to know other hospitals’ condition but not only the two.

悦微微志燮UID: 2759026

Basing on the data of the comparison between the two hospital with distinctively feature, and supposing that the situation of the small, nonprofit hospital in Saluda is much better than of the large, for-profit hospital of Megaville, the author accordingly concludes that treatment in all smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in total larger, for-profit hospitals. It seems to be a rational deduction, while a close examination would reveal how groundless it is.

A threshold assumption upon which this argument relies on that the average length of a patient's stay at the hospital of Saluda is much shorter than at the hospital in Megaville. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case and it is entirely possible that the illness the patients got is more serious who seek the medicine in large hospital and who visit the doctor in small one. The common sense informs us that more serious illness, generally, has spend the doctor to treat much more time. Similarly, the cure rate could also be determined by the specific circumstance of the patients' disease. Thus, to improve efficiency, the author must present more information about study like something mentioned above, otherwise suspicions to the study would be brought out.

What further weakens the conclusion in this argument is the fact that there is more employees per patient in the Saluda hospital than the hospital in Megaville. Employees in Saluda may be sluggish with talking or sleeping during the work while the employees of the hospital in Megaville is much more busy for taking care of the patients just because of less coagents. No evidence is presented to indicate that the employees would offer better service in hospital of Saluda than of Megavillie- some weak and ambiguous information is merely thrown into the argument.

Moreover, even assuming that the data would indicate that hospital in Saluda is more outstanding in many aspects than hospital in Megaville, the author still cannot substantiate the assumption to be warranted that all small, nonprofit hospital is much better than larger, for-profits ones. An appropriate example is not very far to seek. It is entirely possible that the outstanding performance of the hospital of Saluda could not as a role to representative the whole small nonprofit hospital, some are also expensive and have quality as bad as the Megaville hospital has. By the contrast, other large hospital could be also economical and of good quality. Under any scenario, adopting the author's proposal might not be persuasive.

As it stands, the conclusion of this argument is not well reasoned. To make it more logically acceptable, the author would have demonstrate detailed investigations with solid fact that what the real standard is for determining whether a hospital is economical and of good quality, and more appropriate deduction that whether the single two hospital could be representative of the two kinds of hospitals' circumstances.