Emulate作文小组 argument203

AK_小儿UID: 2784558

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."

提纲
1病人平均停留时间不能说明问题
2治愈率因地而异
3小医院每个病人的医生多可能由于病人数量少而大医院病人数量多
4 S比M好也不能代表所有的小非盈利医院好过大盈利的医院

The author indicates that the treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and better than that in larger, for profit hospitals. To support this assertion, the author cites the fact that the average length of a patient's stay, the cure rate, the employees per patient and the reaction of patient in each hospital, which seems to support his opinion well. However, i find this argument unconvincing for the reasons below.

First of all, the author assumes the shorter average length of a patient's stay to be the shorter time of recovery, which is ungrounded at all. Maybe the larger hospital in Megaville is more responsible to ensure the health of patients so they extend the length of a patient's stay. Perhaps the patients accepted by hospital in Megaville get more serious disease than those in Saluda. Of course it takes a longer time to cure them.


Secondly, we don't know the environment of each city and the people’s body condition in each so cure rate can’t tell the truth. Perhaps the environment in Megaville makes people there more easily infected with some disease which is difficult to be cured while Saluda’s is better so that people are harder to get ill and healthier to recover. Additionally, if a person get a badly illness, he may choose the large hospital because it is more trustful while the persons who go to smaller hospital may only have some ailment. So the cure rate isn't a represent of the quality in different area.

Thirdly, perhaps the numbers of the patient is so large that makes the employees per patient be less in Megaville, which can tell more people are likely to go to the larger one. And less employees per patient can't indicate the worse quality of a hospital. If the employees in the smaller hospital are not professional, the large number seems no significant at all.

Fourthly, the complaints can't be used as a standard to judge a hospital for that the complaint is the represent of one's subjective judgment. Perhaps people in Megaville are more difficult to be satisfied with everything. And in one's sub consciousness, we always think the larger, for-profit hospitals should be better than they do now, while in non-profit hospital, people has no extra reason to complain since its non-profit.

Most importantly, even if all the assumptions above are logically, we can only indicate that the smaller nonprofit hospital in Saluda is better than that larger for-profit one in Megaville. But only these two hospitals can't reflect all the hospitals. There is no evidence that all small non-profit hospitals are better than all larger for-profit ones.

All in all, the conclusion that the smaller, nonprofit hospitals are better and more economical than the larger, for-profit hospitals is not well reasoned. To make it more convincing, the author should provide more detail about the comparison and do a more accurate survey stating that all the smaller, nonprofit hospitals around the world are better than the larger, for-profit hospitals.(word 501)