emulate 小组 第8次作业贴 andrew_zwi

Andrew_zwiUID: 2670942

【题目】Argument 203


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."

在Saluda镇的小型非盈利医院，患者平均逗留时间是两天；在邻近的Megaville市的大型盈利医院，患者平均逗留时间为6天。而且，Saluda医院患者的治愈率大约是Megaville医院的两倍。Saluda平均每个患者对应的医务人员的数量比Megaville医院多，而且地方医院关于服务的投诉也较少。这些数据表明小型非盈利医院的治疗比大型盈利医院更加经济，质量更高。

提纲：
1.
住院时间段不代表小医院质量好
2.
治愈率高不代表小医院质量好
3.
平均每个患者对应的医务人员数多也不代表小医院质量好

字数： 424

正文：

In this newspaper, a conclusion is drawn by the author that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. To substantiate this conclusion the author cites the following comparisons between the Saluda hospital and the Megaville hospital: At the Saluda hospital the average length of a patient's stay is shorter, the cure rate and employee-patient ratio are both higher, and the number of complaints from patients is lower. Admittedly, this conclusion seems to be somewhat convincing, but further cogitation reveals that it omits some substantial assumptions that constitute a logical argument.

Firstly, by relying on the survey the argument assumes that a shorter hospital stay indicates a quicker recovery, in turn better care. However, the new fails to provide any evidence to support this assumption. Perhaps Saluda hospital simply is unable to keep patients as long as it should to ensure proper care and recovery. Or perhaps the patients in such small hospital just have some uncomfortable and can recovery in short time. Since the owner has failed to consider and rule out these possibilities, the arguer's assertion cannot be taken seriously.

Additionally, the mere fact that the rate of cure at the Saluda hospital is higher than at Megavile's hospital is scant evidence that the quality of care in Megaville is higher. Perhaps more Saluda patients suffer from curable problems than Megaville patients do; or perhaps Saluda, accounting for the health of patients, will send the patients who cannot be cured in Saluda to the bigger and better hospital like Megaville. Given these possible scenarios, the cure-rate issue proves nothing about comparative quality of care.

Finally, a higher employee-patient ratio at Saluda is unfounded presupposition of either better care or greater efficiency. Common sense informs us that it is the skills and experience of each employee, not the number of employees that determines the quality of care. Besides, it is quite possible that the comparatively large staff at Saluda may lead to organizational inefficiency, however, that a smaller staff with more effective would provide better care.


In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive and unreceptive as it stands. To bolster it, the arguer should provide more information and details that why Saluda hospital provides more efficient, better-quality care than Megaville's hospital. Additionally, to better evaluate the argument, the arguer must account for all other factors that might influence the economical and quality of hospital. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.