欢迎拍作文小组 argu 203

crazyjooUID: 2805124

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: 566         

  The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. By making a comparison  of a small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, a hospital with higher cure rate and shorter average length of a patient's stay with a larger, for-profit hospitals in the city of Megaville,a hospital with less employees per patient and more complaints about service from the patients, the argument concludes that former exceeds the latter in terms of economics interest and the quality of treatment seems logical.

Firstly, shorter length of a patient's stay do not certainly mean quicker recovery and thus better quality in treatment. People who defend the arguer might argue that this element would surely stand for superior treatment of the hospital in Saluda since people leave the hospital as soon as he or she recovers. However, they might ignore certain possibilities explaining this situation. Let's take a consideration over the geographic difference. It's possible that people living in the town can breath fresher air everyday and have more space for exercise while people living in the city generally suffer from tremendous pressure due to fiercer competition and faster living tempo and have little time fore leisure, not to mention for exercise. For this matter, Megaville's residents are more likely to get severer disease than people living in Saluda. As it turns out, the Megaville's hospital's average length of a patient's stay would be longer in spite of its better medical quality.

  Secondly,the mere fact different cure rate can prove nothing about the medical quality.It is possible that Saluda's inhabitants would drive to the Megaville's hospital for its high medical quality when they get severe disease and would choose to visit the local hospital when they got ailments, such as fever, headache and running nose, all of which are much easier to handle for a doctor. In this respect, it is hard to conclude that the Saluda's hospital is more economical when it comes to the cure of severer disease.

Thirdly, the number of employee per patient does not ensure better quality either. Perhaps, in order to fulfill a sort of agreement or cooperation, the Megaville hospital sends its interns to the Saluda hospital every year. Thus, the quality of the employee is open to doubt. Or perhaps relatively large group of employee is a result of inefficient anagement while smaller group of employee result from Megaville's more effective management.

Forthly, fewer complaints about service are not necessarily the result of better service. Common sense informs us that people tend to complain more frequently about the service they paid than the service they don't. Or perhaps fewer complaints do not indicate fewer percentage of patient who complain about the service considering the different size of these two hospitals.

  Finally, the sample of the survey, in itself, does not ensure representativeness. Even we accept the arguer's assumption that the Saluda hospital is better than the Megaville hospital, the arguer can not justifiably extend the assertion to embrace every hospital. Unless the arguer sampled a sufficient number of hospitals and did it randomly across the whole spectrum, the survey result is highly unsubstantial.

   In sum, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. To make it more logical acceptable, the arguer should sample more hospitals in nationwide. In addition, the survey result will be more valuable if the arguer make a comprehensive and insightful analysis of those four differences cited in the argument.

crazyjooUID: 2805124

有人说我的它因很牵强？如何才能做到不牵强？关键是什么呢？

谢谢

江雪UID: 2790520

楼主 falloutranger给你改过一篇issue的 他留了自己作文的链接 你给他改过么？奶油同学给你改的作文你好好看过么？我希望你尊重大家的劳动 再重的话我不说了

crazyjooUID: 2805124

3# 江雪

奶油同学给我改的都是语法上的错误，只是点出来错误名称。我语法不大好，都一一和同学讨论乃至都虚心改正了。

falloutranger那篇更多的原因是自己水平有限，觉得改他的作文有点困难。那篇我看了，时间上紧没能及时更改，望见谅.

江雪UID: 2790520

3# 江雪  

奶油同学给我改的都是语法上的错误，只是点出来错误名称。我语法不大好，都一一和同学讨论乃至都虚心改正了。

falloutranger那篇更多的原因是自己水平有限，觉得改他的作文有点困难。那篇我看了， ...
crazyjoo 发表于 2010-7-5 09:25

奶油的改动请你回她的主题帖看。。。

至于fall同学的作文，如果你觉得改起来能力有欠缺，请跟帖说明。这也是尊重别人的劳动！

crazyjooUID: 2805124

5# 江雪

嗯。我是回他主题帖看了、谢谢bz的建议.

PS:他指出我很多主谓一致问题，我问了好多人都认为我没错误 -.- 迷惑ing

江雪UID: 2790520

5# 江雪  

嗯。我是回他主题帖看了、谢谢bz的建议.

PS:他指出我很多主谓一致问题，我问了好多人都认为我没错误 -.- 迷惑ing
crazyjoo 发表于 2010-7-5 12:18

比如？

crazyjooUID: 2805124

The people who oppose the speaker might argue that it is Einstein, the mistake discoverer, ravages the well-established the entire physical knowledge structure [错误的强调结构]. Conversely, as it turns out, it is Einstein who discovers the hidden flaws in the physical knowledge structure make it more comprehensive and convincing [主谓一致].


In my observation, it's highly impractical and naive to do so, given the fact that our daily lives are teem with anthropogenic mistakes [主谓一致].

江雪UID: 2790520

先讲第一句：
it is Einstein who discovers the hidden flaws in the physical knowledge structure make it more comprehensive and convincing [主谓一致].

首先，这里是一个强调结构，强调的是主语Einstein，谓语是discovers，宾语是其余部分。the physical knowledge structure make it more comprehensive and convincing应该是一个定语从句，修饰structure，那么make前面就缺少主语which，而且make要改为第三人称单数。按照你原来的写法，discovers和make都变成了句子的谓语动词，所以说你在主谓一致上犯了错，一点不错。

江雪UID: 2790520

In my observation, it's highly impractical and naive to do so, given the fact that our daily lives are teem with anthropogenic mistakes [主谓一致].

再说第二句，teem是一个动词，are是一个系动词，一个句子里同时出现了两个谓语动词，显然也是主谓一致的问题。去掉are就可以了。

over.

crazyjooUID: 2805124

10# 江雪

恩谢谢！ 不过对于第一句 应该具体怎么改呢？
我想表达的是：   正是爱因斯坦，这个在物理知识体系中找到错误的人使它更加完整和可信

江雪UID: 2790520

Einstein, who discovers the hidden flaws in the physical knowledge structure, makes it more comprehensive and convincing

clarence8UID: 2813388

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. By making a comparison  of a small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, a hospital with higher cure rate and shorter average length of a patient's stay with a larger, for-profit hospitals in the city of Megaville,a hospital with less employees per patient and more complaints about service from the patients, the argument concludes that former exceeds the latter in terms of economics interest and the quality of treatment seems logical.

Firstly, shorter length of a patient's stay do（does） not certainly mean quicker recovery and thus better quality in treatment. People who defend the arguer might argue that this element would surely stand for superior treatment of the hospital in Saluda since people leave the hospital as soon as he or she recovers. However, they might ignore certain possibilities explaining this situation. Let's take a consideration over the geographic difference. It's possible that people living in the town can breath（breathe） fresher air everyday（every day） and have more space for exercise while people living in the city generally suffer from tremendous pressure due to fiercer competition and faster living tempo and have little time fore（for） leisure, not to mention for exercise. For this matter, Megaville's residents are more likely to get severer disease than people living in Saluda. As it turns out, the Megaville's hospital's average length of a patient's stay would be longer in spite of its better medical quality.

  Secondly,the mere fact different cure rate can prove nothing（个人觉得用nothing稍微有些过） about the medical quality.It is possible that Saluda's inhabitants would drive to the Megaville's hospital for its high medical quality when they get severe disease and would choose to visit the local hospital when they got ailments, such as fever, headache and running nose, all of which are much easier to handle for a doctor. In this respect, it is hard to conclude that the Saluda's hospital is more economical when it comes to the cure of severer disease.

Thirdly, the number of employee per patient does not ensure better quality either. Perhaps, in order to fulfill a sort of agreement or cooperation, the Megaville hospital sends its interns to the Saluda hospital every year. Thus, the quality of the employee is open to doubt. Or perhaps relatively large group of employee is a result of inefficient anagement while smaller group of employee result from Megaville's more effective management.

Forthly, fewer complaints about service are not necessarily the result of better service. Common sense informs us that people tend to complain more frequently about the service they paid than the service they don't. Or perhaps（上一段有过这个句式，最好多样化） fewer complaints do not indicate fewer percentage of patient who complain （主谓不一致）about the service considering the different size of these two hospitals.

  Finally, the sample of the survey, in itself, does not ensure representativeness. Even we accept the arguer's assumption that the Saluda hospital is better than the Megaville hospital, the arguer can not justifiably extend the assertion to embrace every hospital. Unless the arguer sampled a sufficient number of hospitals and did it randomly across the whole spectrum, the survey result is highly unsubstantial.

   In sum, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. To make it more logical acceptable, the arguer should sample more hospitals in nationwide. In addition, the survey result will be more valuable if the arguer make a comprehensive and insightful analysis of those four differences cited in the argument.
1. 看完本文收获很大，作者写的很流畅，logic flaws找的也很全面
2. 很多句型和单词用的很巧
3. 些许小瑕疵注意即可

crazyjooUID: 2805124

13# clarence8

感谢评论！也欢迎把你的习作给我学习下！ 不过我的他因有点担心会牵强 。。