【Snickers小组】11月16日 argument203 by彼年豆蔻

彼年豆蔻UID: 2791778

字数：486
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the treatment in smaller and nonprofit hospital is cheaper and better than that of larger and for-profit hospitals. And he gives several reasons to support his conclusion. At first glance, I find his argument is somewhat convincing, but further reflection tells me that this argument has some flaws that I can’t be convinced by it.

First of all, the arguer says the average length of a patient’s stay in Saluda’s hospital is two days while the average stay in Megaville’s hosipital is six days. However, the length of the stay cannot prove whether the quality of the treatment is good or not. Maybe since the quality is better in Megaville’s hospital, people choose it to cure more severe disease. Thus the average patient’s stay is prolonged since the severe illness need more time to treat.

Second, the arguer shows the evidence that the cure rate in Saluda’s hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. But cure rate also cannot support the conclusion. Because perhaps the reason why those patients choose Saluda hospital is that it’s charge is cheaper and meanwhile their disease do not need serious diagnose. Since their illness is easier to cure, thus Salude hospital’s cure rate is very high. While people who have more severe diseases think they have to take a more accurate diagnose and better treatment, thus they choose Megaville.

Third, the arguer provide some information that per patient can get more hospital employees in Saluda hospital and their complaints are fewer than that of Megaville hospital. This evidence actually has no causal relationship with the hospital’s quality or charge. Perhaps most of the employees are cleaners . Even assuming all the employees are doctors and nurses, it is also very likely that since their effectiveness are very low and their skills are not good thus the hospital need so many employees. And it is possible that because the expenditure in Saluda is so low that the patients are not willing to complaining or maybe the patients are all local people that they are aware of the employees of Saluda’s so that they are embarrassed to complain.

Even assuming that the treatment in Saluda hospital is really better and more economical than that of Megaville hospital, it can also not get the conclusion that treatment in all smaller and nonprofit hospitals is better and cheaper than all larger, for-profit hospitals. Because Saluda hospital and Megaville hospital are only two special examples, we cannot draw a general conclusion from two examples, especially that they are not representative at all.

To sum up, this is a weak argument that it cannot make me believe its conclusion. If the arguer wants to make this argument more credible, he should provide more investigation in two hospitals’ patients, such as their detailed diseases. And the arguer should give more comparision between these two kinds of hospitals.

zcsdtcUID: 2875047

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the treatment in smaller and nonprofit hospital is cheaper and better than that of larger and for-profit hospitals. And he gives several reasons to support his conclusion. At first glance, I find his argument is somewhat convincing, but further reflection tells me that this argument has some flaws that I can’t be convinced by it.

First of all, the arguer says the average length of a patient’s stay in Saluda’s hospital is two days while the average stay in Megaville’s hosipital is six days. However, the length of the stay cannot prove whether the quality of the treatment is good or not. Maybe since the quality is better in Megaville’s hospital, people choose it to cure more severe disease. Thus the average patient’s stay is prolonged since the severe illness need(needs) more time to treat.

Second, the arguer shows the evidence that the cure rate in Saluda’s hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. But cure rate also cannot support the conclusion. Because perhaps the reason why those patients choose Saluda hospital is that it’s charge is cheaper and meanwhile their disease do not need serious diagnose(diagnosis,这句用的有问题，不需要紧急的治疗而不是诊断). Since their illness is easier to cure, thus Salude hospital’s cure rate is very high. While people who have more severe diseases think they have to take a more accurate diagnose（这么用还是有问题，diagnosis） and better treatment, thus they choose Megaville.后面可以继续深入阐释，感觉噶然而止了。

Third, the arguer provide some information that per patient can get more hospital employees in Saluda hospital and their complaints are fewer than that of Megaville hospital. This evidence actually has no causal relationship with the hospital’s quality or charge. Perhaps most of the employees are cleaners . Even assuming all the employees are doctors and nurses, it is also very likely that since their effectiveness are very low and their skills are not good thus the hospital need so many employees. And it is possible that because the expenditure in Saluda is so low that the patients are not willing to complaining or maybe the patients are all local people that they are aware of the employees of Saluda’s so that they are embarrassed to complain.

Even assuming that the treatment in Saluda hospital is really better and more economical than that of Megaville hospital, it can also not get the conclusion that treatment in all smaller and nonprofit hospitals is better and cheaper than all larger, for-profit hospitals. Because Saluda hospital and Megaville hospital are only two special examples, we cannot draw a general conclusion from two examples, especially that they are not representative at all.

To sum up, this is a weak argument that it cannot make me believe its conclusion. If the arguer wants to make this argument more credible, he should provide more investigation in two hospitals’ patients, such as their detailed diseases. And the arguer should give more comparision between these two kinds of hospitals.

写的很不错，我写的好像有很多问题……需要修改……