本人第一篇ARGU，希望大家狂拍

joekimiwongUID: 2845746

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."





In this argument, the arguer concludes that treatment in smaller, non-profit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. To support his point, the arguer provides the evidence that the average treatment length of a patient at the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, is shorter than that at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville. In addition, he points out that the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital and there are few complaints about service at the Saluda hospital. This argument is not convincing for several critical fallacies.
To begin with, the time length of a patient’s stay is not sufficient to indicate the quality of treatment in the hospital. There are other factors which influence the quality, such as the environment and the service provided, and the actual expenditures of patients. If the environment is bad and the expenses are high in the small hospital, the patients are not willing to stay longer. As we can see, the arguer fails to give any evidence about these conditions. Therefore, we cannot generalize that treatment in smaller, non-profit hospitals is more economical and of better quality.
Secondly, the cure rate is not appropriate to judge the quality of treatment. In most cases, we go to the large hospital in the city when we suffer serious diseases. And the worse we get, the longer we stay at the hospital. Since we do not know the severity of illness among patients in the Saluda hospital and in the Megaville hospital, we cannot consider the cure rate as an evaluation of the quality of treatment.
Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. To evaluate the expense condition and the quality of these two kinds of hospitals, we cannot compare two specific ones in an area as a support. The economic conditions and people’s awareness of health vary from place to place. The Saluda hospital may not represent the small, nonprofit hospitals, nor the Megaville hospital can represent the large, for-profit ones.Without given the average statistics of these two kinds of hospitals, it is inappropriate for us to make the conclusion that treatment in smaller, non-profit hospitals is more economical and of better quality.
In sum, the argument is not convincing because the evidence used in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument logically acceptable, the arguer should present more average statistics on various aspects of these two sorts of hospitals.

snowcmxUID: 2765226

简单说
首段有点过长，可以精简下你的复述部分。
第二段 既然说了S医院是non-profit的， 就不存在你说的收费可能更高的问题。
病人在医院待得时间长短问题可以这么攻击，比如 走了不代表病就治好了，可能病人待了两天发现病在这儿是好不了了，就走了，去大医院了。而且有可能就是小毛病，发个烧啥的，用不着待那么久。
第三段 除了你说的，还可以说下基数问题。去M的人比去S的人多的多，一个比率的话分母大了，分数自然可能小了。配合上你说的，大病才去大医院，更难治，分子也小。
后面没啥了。
拙见，仅供参考