**茶叶蛋炒饭**第十四次作业 ARG203 请组员跟帖

saybia1993UID: 2625112

占楼

澈透水痕rachelUID: 2868066

This argument is logically unconvincing in some aspects. Merely based on some weak data and several unrelated facts, it's too hasty for the author to draw the conclusion that the small nonprofit hospitals is superior in quality and cost than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. The reasons can be stated as follows.

To begin with, in this argument, the author indicates that the average length of a patient's stay in smaller, non-profit hospital is two days while it's six days in large, for-profit ones. However, the length of patients' stay can't explain any question. Does patients' less time staying in hospital mean a superb medical technique? It's probably not the case. The author doesn't provide us more details about the two hospitals and the diseases their patients have. Maybe the smaller hospital in S makes a restriction for the length of patients' stay in hospital due to its poor condition with less sickrooms while the large hospital in M has more sickrooms offered for patients thus not necessarily sending patients home before recovering. Besides, the different diseases people suffer from may also influence patient's stay in hospital. There's a trend in our country that people go to larger hospitals for serious diseases while go to small hospitals for some minor illness such as cold. In that case, it's obviously that patients in large hospitals have to stay long for curing. Therefore, it's unfounded to reach the conclusion involved in the argument until the author provides further evidence to exclude all these concerns.

Secondly, the fact mentioned in the argument that the S hospital's cure rate is about twice that of the M hospital doesn't effectively demonstrate that the medical quality of S hospital is better. Just as mentioned above, people go to these two hospitals may have various severity of disease. If the patients with serious disease are more likely to go to large hospitals, the cure rate may reasonably decline as the result of more difficult curing methods. Let alone some disease still have no way to be fully cured at the current medical level. What's more, the fact that more employees per patient and few complaints do not necessarily indicate that treatment in S hospital is better than that in M hospital. For the reason that a higher employee-patient ratio may just indicate organizational inefficiency in S hospital. In short, without better evidence ruling out these and other alternative explanations, it's reasonable to cast considerable doubt on this fact.

Finally, even though the forgoing logical flaws can be successfully ruled out and the smaller S hospital can be proved to be better than the larger M hospital, the conclusion can not be generalized to all other hospitals. Not every smaller, no-profit hospitals will necessarily be more economical and of better quality than that in larger, for- profit hospitals. As we all know, many factors should be taken into consideration to measure the quality of a history, such as the skills of doctors and the medical equipment. For that matter, more detailed investigation should be undertaken to find out the general situation of other small and large hospitals.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidences cited in the argument don't lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Therefore, if the author had considered the given factors discussed above, the argument would have been more credible and logical.

口含太阳UID: 2959623

The arguments claims that the hospital in the town of Saluda is more economical and of better quality than the hospital in the nearby city of Megaville. To support this claim, the author cites evidence in the form of statistics. Intuitively, this argument sounds convincing. However, upon closer examination, a few logical flaws can be revealed, which detract from the validity of the argument. Basically, the conditions of the hospital in Saluda are dissimilar to that in Megaville, which renders the two hospitals hardly comparable.


The hospital in Saluda, small and nonprofit, is more likely to treat general illnesses while the larger, for-profit one, with advanced and more comprehensive equipment and staff, is capable of diagnosing and treating severe and rare diseases. This could explain the differences in average patient stay and cure rate. Residents of Saluda, when undergoing common ailments such as a cold, would reasonably consult the doctors in the local hospital, since such kind of ailment can be easily cured by a small hospital. However, when thrown into severe or fatal conditions, people would prefer the larger one in Megaville, because they tend to believe their complicated symptoms is more likely to be correctly diagnosed and treated in a comprehensive hospital in Megaville. It is more time-consuming and difficult to cure severe or fatal diseases. As a result, it is reasonable for a larger, for-profit to have longer average patient stay and cure rate when compared to a small, nonprofit local hospital.

It is possible for the Megaville hospital to have better quality yet its employee-patient ratio is smaller than the Saluda hospital. In fact, just because of its better quality, many patents in Saluda would gravitate towards Megaville. Accordingly, the number of patient in Saluda hospital is reduced whereas patients accumulate in the Megaville hospital, dragging down the employee-patient ratio in it. In addition, the Megaville hospital, in a city, provides service to a larger population. As a result, every employee has to take care of more patients than in Saluda. However, since the argument does not supply the minimum ratio requirement and the difference between two hospitals in terms of such ratio, there is no evidence showing that this factor is affecting the larger hospital significantly. Its quality may still be retained intact.

Likewise, facing the risks of dealing with more patients and more complicated diseases, the Megaville hospital is likely to receive more complaints, unlike the small Saluda hospital whose burden is less heavy.

Last, the argument fails to offer the information about the charges of treatment so that it cannot be drawn that treatment in the small one is more economical than the larger one. Perhaps, there is a standard charge system implemented by the government. Therefore, it may cost the same amount of money to receive professional services in both hospitals.

The argument fails to provide any sound conclusion due to its far-fetched comparison. These two hospitals are of different levels and functions, although their services may overlap. Their patients and specialty are accordingly distinct. The author should compare local hospitals of the similar conditions to bring out some really useful conclusion.

原地兜风UID: 2812262

The quotation above suggested that the Saluda(S) hospital better suits patients than Megaville(M) hospital in both charge and treatment quality. Thus he concluded smaller, non-profit hospitals are better than larger, for-profit hospitals in these points. This argument has flaws in several respects.

First of all, even if the evaluation of S exceeds M's, it is invalidate to indicate that smaller, non-profit hospitals are better than larger, for-profit hospitals in certain respects. Empirical evidence informs that one example is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. The author provided nothing about the information that these hospitals can be the representatives of the two types of hospitals, hence his conclusion is suspicious.

Further, the comparison between the two hospitals in not conducted in a convincing way. In order to prove S is more economical than M, the author provided the only seemed related evidence that the average length of a patient's stay is longer in S. It is almost impossible to deduce from this evidence as the average cost of each day in hospital contributes to the economy issue and it is not told. If a patient costs much more in S when cure the same disease, it is hard to assure me S is more economical. If the evidence I mentioned above is not related to the author’s conclusion, then his claim that S is more economical is invalidate.

The author's implication about S is of better quality is also fallacious even though lots of facts are cited in the quotation. The cure rate among patients in S is twice that of the M, however specific information about the total amount of patients in the two hospitals is not provided. If the number of patients in M largely surpasses that number in S, then the author should better reevaluate his conclusion. Because the possibility exists that the employees in S have only treated a small group of patients, so it is relatively rare for them to meet severe diseases and the cure rate is relatively high. Another fact should be noted is that the more employees in S as well as few complaints about service does not necessarily contributes to the conclusion that patients will receive higher quality of treatment in S. Consider that the average backgrounds of doctors and nurses are not mentioned in the text, so the author draw his conclusion too hasty. If more capable doctors and nurses are employed in M maybe because M can offer a generous salary due to its for-profit nature, average person would accept that M may provide better service. Besides, the service in M maybe is without a flaw that nearly no complaints are found there.

From what I have discussed above, the conclusion the author made is not logical coherent. In order to be more persuasive, he should provide evidence that S and M can be representatives of the types of hospital. Also he should provide more information about the average cost of patients in the two hospitals separately. Maybe a all-around evaluate system can help to compare their quality.

greoge007UID: 2865153

In this argument the author comes to the conclusion that the treatment in smaller, nonprofitable hospitals is more economical and has better medical quality than that in larger and for-profits hospitals. To substantiate the claim the author compare the average time that patient stay in hospital between in town and city. Additionally, the cure rate of the patients is about twice that of the city hospital. Further, the town hospital has more employees per patient and fewer complaints about service than that of city hospital. At first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat convincing; however, further scrutiny of these evidence only reveals some critical logical flaws that seriously undermine the conclusion.

To begin with, the argument rests on a gratuitous assumption that the shorter the patients staying in hospital the better the hospital is. In this argument, the average length in town hospital is 4 days but in city is 6 days. The length patients staying in hospital do not necessarily means that the techniques or treatment of the hospital in town is better than that of in city. It is highly possible that the patients suffer from different levels of the disease or different kinds of diseases. And some diseases need more time to recover or need more advanced treatment in the city hospital which town hospital does not have.

In the second place, even if the hospital in Saluda is better, another problem that seriously weakens the logic of this argument is that the author unfairly assumes the higher the cure rate is the better the treatment in that hospital. In this argument the cure rate of Saluda is twice about that of the Megaville hospital. In some degrees the two hospitals is not comparable, for the patients are different. It is likely that the patients in the Saluda suffer from the diseases that are curable and easy to treat;  however, the patients in Megaville hospital want to seek more advanced treatment for their incurable disease, thus making the cure rate in Megaville hospital lower than that of Saluda.

In the third place, the author falsely assumes the few complaints and more employees per patients means better quality of that hospital. The reason why the Megaville hospital do not have the same employees per patients may be the total population in the city is larger than the population in town. Also, fewer complaints means high quality is not warranted. It is possible that the patients in town do not like or forget to complain or the people in both areas have different judgments about what kind of service they will complain about.

Finally, even if granted the foregoing evidence is correct. The conclusion remains doubtful. Because, in this argument the author only cites two hospitals. Whether the two hospital is representative enough and can reflect all the hospital both in town and city is open to doubt.

To sum up, the author fails to substanciate his claim. In order to make this argument more persuasive the author would have to take more hospitals into consideration. Additionally, he would have to consider the differences between the patients. Only with more specific information could this argument be more logically acceptable.