【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT203 B组回收站

weaselUID: 2739489

18日13点前

youngstoneUID: 2670818

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the treatment in small， non-profit hospitals is superior to that in large, for-profit hospitals. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that the patients in Sauluda stay two days in average while the patients in Megaville stay six days in average. Besides, the cure rate in Saluda twices that in Megaville. The arguer also reasons that the more per-patient employees and the less complaints in Saluda lead to its superiority. While clearly examining the evidences, we may find that they lead little support to the final conclusion for few of concerns the cogent factors that influence the quality of a hospital.

In the first place, how long the patients stay has little to do with the quality of the hospital regarding that the seriousness of the illness is unknown. In the same way, the cure rate either makes little sense. It is entirely possible that patients are prone to go to see the doctor in Megaville if they suffer from serious diseases while they prefer to go to Saluda when they only catch a cold. This is quite reasonable because Saluda, as a non-profit hospital which may not have experts and advanced equipments, can hardly cure serious diseases. Then the patients whose conditions are serious will surely stay in the hospital for a longer time. And in the same way, the more serious disease is harder to cure and thus the cure rate in Megavillle is lower. Without the conditions of the patients, we cannot evaluate the quality of the two hospitals only by the time they stay in hospital and the cure rate.

In the second place, the fact that Saluda hospital has more employees per patient can neither indicates that it is better than Megaville. Firstly, it is possible that a myriad of people are prone to Megaville and thus the per-patient employees become less. And the less per-patient employees is not due to the lack of doctors and nurses, but due to the high quantity of patients. And more patients' preference to go to Megaville is a negative evidence to prove Saluda's superiority. Secondly, there is no information about the quality of these employees. Then we can not judge which hospital has better quality. Maybe the per-patient doctors and nurses are enough to meet the patients' needs, but their quality can not be ensured.

In the third place, less complaints in Saluda does not necessary indicate that the patients are more satisfied with Saluda. Firstly, just as mentioned above, there may be much more patients in Megaville and its complaints certainly become more. Secondly, not all patients will make complaints when they are not satisfied and they may only never go to the hospital any more. Thirdly, if Saluda has more patients with slight illness, which can be cured with ease, there will hardly be any complaints.

In conclusion, the argument has many logical flaws and its main problem is the lack of information of the numbers of patients and the seriousness of their diseases. The arguer may fail to consider the different functions between non-profit and for-profit hospitals. There is not any information about the fees each hospital charges and it is by no means to evaluate which hospital is more economical.

sola-nanaUID: 2744594

Given evidence that the average length of apatient’s stay in a nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda is much shorter andthe cure rate among patients is twice more than a for-profit hospital in thenearby city of Megaville; in the meantime the employees per patient are morethan the hospital in Megaville, the article concludes that treatment insmaller, non-profit hospitals is more economical and of better quality thantreatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. I find there are several respectsthat worth to be doubt about.

In the first point, the number of days thata patient stays is not a good criterion for the judgment of the quality ofhospital. It is not how long a patient stays but the efficiency of thetreatment that counts for the quality of hospital. Different illnesses entaildifferent treatments; as a result, there will be a difference in the length of thepatients’ stays. It is common that the academic skill levels and facilities insmall towns could not be compared with big ones in the metropolises. So, manyof the serious diseases could only be treated in big cities. That kind oftreatment would probably take a much longer time than the normal ones. Moreover,with the possibility that the hospital in small towns could not cope withserious diseases, the patients might be transferred to the big hospital incities. This would certainly shorten the stays of the patients.

In the second point, the article indicatesthat the cure rate among patients is an important sign of the quality ofhospital, too. The cure rate is an important index, while it is an index only whentreating the same illness or it is nothing. However, the article offers nothingabout whether the illnesses treated are the same or even description of theseverity of the illnesses in the two hospitals. Lacking such description it is alsopossible that the illnesses treated in the non-profit hospital in the smalltown are common cold or fever while the illnesses in the for-profit hospital inthe nearby city are cancer or heart diseases or some kind. Therefore, we couldnot assess the quality of the two hospitals by comparison.

Also, the number of employees per patient couldnot stand for the higher or lower quality of hospitals. The hospital in thetown of Saluda is a nonprofit one, which means that there are more chances for thosenon-specialized persons who are vigorous to help others while may nothave sufficient necessary medical skills to deal with the illnesses. Consequently,the number of the employees per patient might rise while the quality oftreatment might be in a decline.

Lastly, we could not conclude the qualityof service from the hospital is high or low on account of the number ofpatients who complaint. As there is no introduction of the hospital and noinformation about how many patients the hospital accepts every day, numbers ofthe complainants are meaningless. Following this further, there is a wild possibilitythat patients of the hospital in Saluda complain less in view of they received treatmentwith no charge from the non-profit hospital. While, the other hospital inMegaville might not be so luck for patients paid for their treatment and mightnot be completely satisfied.

On balance, this argument is unconvinced asit stands. To better assess the quality of the two kinds of hospitals, moreevidences and information of the hospital and patients should be offered. In themeantime, before reasoning, the article should substantiate the assumptions first,which is the right order of ratiocination.

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

In this article, the author made a comparison between the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda and the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville. From the data listed, the author concluded that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. The analogy seems reasonable at first glance, but through further analysis we can find the comparison suffered from several fallacies.

Firstly, the writer compared the average length of a patient’s stay and the cure rate among patients between the two hospitals and easily believed that the shorter average length of patient’s stay and the larger cure rate means the better treatment. Actually, the details of the medical case of illness in these hospitals are not given in the story, on which the author’s conclusion should be based. It is highly likely that since the Megaville hospital is bigger and equipped by more medical instruments, people with severe illness tend to choose the Megeville other than the smaller one. This may lead to the shorter stay of patients and the lager cure rate because the less serious ailment is more easy to be healed. Without the basic information, the evidence obviously lacks persuasion.

Secondly, one argument that the Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville couldn’t demonstrate that the Saluda is of high quality. The quality of a hospital is not based on the number of the employees per patient, but the overall condition of the service of the medical caring, the number of good medical instrument, the treatment offered by the doctors etc. With the more employees per patient, the non-profit system in Saluda hospital may leads to less wage per staff, which may bring about the bad attitude toward the patients. And, the concrete condition about the medical caring and the serving attitude of the two hospitals are not given in the article, so it failed to prove that the hospital in Megaville is of worse quality.

Thirdly, the writer also cited that there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. Considering the local one is a non-profit hospital, while the Megeville one is a for-profit one, the patients wants the better service and treatment more eagerly in the for-profit one because they pay for that. Moreover, as mentioned in the first paragraph, the bigger hospital is more likely to accept more severe medical cases, as the big case calls for more time and effort, the more complaints is inevitable.

In summary, without the further investigation and proof, the author couldn’t easily make the two hospitals as the typical samples of the smaller, nonprofit hospitals and the bigger, for-profit ones and came to the conclusion on all hospitals of these two kinds.