ARGUMENT 203...完全忘了肿么反驳了...结果写得跟想的完全不同..哎哟！！！

waitingwhtUID: 2867548

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."
WORDS: 537          TIME: 00:39:18          DATE: 2/6/2011 12:10:24 PM

This piece of article has shown us a series of data such as the average staying of the patients, the cure rate, the employee per patient and the complaints about service. And then he/she goes to the conclusion that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and better quality than in treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. When we think about the argument again, there are too many questions coming to our mind.

Firstly, the numbers of days staying in the hospital are different while the author had never given more information about whether the respondents in two hospitals didn't leave their hospitals until they got recovery. We may think that the small hospital may not have many beds for all patients, so that patients could not stay for too long time in the small hospital while the large hospital has more beds and space to let people to stay there. We may also consider about that the large for-profit hospital wants to earn much money from the patients, so the more days the patients stay, the more money they would be paid. Thus, the average patient stay could not say anything about the conclusion.

Secondly, the cure rates among patients in small hospital are higher. But, it is common knowledge that we which hospital we would go to usually depends on the illness we got. We may not go to a large for-profit hospital if we have only a fever or the flu. So, the patients in the large hospital may be have serious illness that cannot easily healed in small hospital and the patients in small hospital may only have some light sick. These would be the cause of the difference of the two hospitals cure rates.

Thirdly, the employees per patients could not mean anything for that the employees do not equal to the treatment or the skill standard of doctors. What's more, what the employee are doing during their work time are don't know. The employees in large hospital may be less but their work efficiency is higher than the small hospitals.

Fourthly, the complaints about service in small hospital may be less than in the large hospital may because the nonprofit hospital did not need the patients to pay much money to them so that the patients don't care about the treatment too much. And the number of patients going to the small hospital could be much less than the number of large hospital so that the complaints may be less as well.

Besides, the hospitals in Saluda and Megaville may be different, and the populations are not the same. That's may lead to a completely inaccurate results of the research.  

If we really want to judge the treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals and the large, for-profit hospitals, more evidence should be used. As long as the hospitals which are researched are at the same town, as long as the patients in both hospital have the same sick and the same physical conditions, as long as the doctors in these two hospital have the same skill in treatment, the result would be better proved that whether the smaller, nonprofit hospitals or the large, for-profit hospitals are more economical and of better quality.