argument203 求指导！！！

top01bf2009UID: 2938063

Based on somecomparison between the nonprofit hospitals in Saluda and the profit hospitalsin Megaville, the author draw the conclusion that small, nonprofit hospital offersmore economical and better quality care than the profit one. To justify thisconclusion, the author cites the following facts: In the hospital of Saluda,the average length of patient’s stay is shorter, the cure rate is higher andthere are more employees per patient with few complaints. However, close scrutinyreveals the arguments contain several logical flaws, which render it unpersuasive.

A threshold problemwith this argument is that the arguer unfairly assumes that the less time patientsspent in hospital indicates they get more care and recovery faster. It isequally possible that the Saluda hospital cannot treat patients with severe diseaselike cancer while the M hospital can, it is obviously patient will stay longerin mp in this case. Another explanation for this phenomenon is that sp cannotafford so many patients and it keeps sending patients to other hospitals to getbetter treatment. The mere fact of stay time hardly suffices to prove whetherthe patient is cured. Without the condition of the patients, we cannot evaluatethe efficiency of sp.

The author also providesno firm evidence that higher cure rate in sp means better quality. It isequally possible that more patient suffer from curable problems as cold thanpatients in mp. Since the author has failed to rule out other possibleexplanation for the higher cure rate, the evidence is insufficient.

Moreover, moreemployees per patient is weak evidence of better care.
The higher employee-patient ratio might just be the result ofthe organizational efficiency in sp.

Finally, theauthor hastily assumes that few complaints indicate more satisfied patients insp feel. However, the author does not give us enough information like the percentageof patients complaining, it still can be higher in sp than mp. Other reasonlike patients in sp do not like to complain because it is useless can alsoresult fewer complaints. The assumption is dubious as the author fails to take intoaccount other explanation.

In summary, merelyon the evidence cited above, the argument is not well supported and thereforeunconvincing as it stands. To strength the argument, the arguer should providemore valid evidence that patients release earlier because they get better careand cure their illness. to better evaluate the argument, I would need to knowhow many patients are healed in sp and whether patients in mp have the similardisease. Also, I would require more information about the percentage ofpatients who complains in each hospital.

top01bf2009UID: 2938063

sigh

xiaoshun672UID: 3045169

Well focused, logically organized and persuasive, except for slight language mistakes like "the author draw the conclusion ".  Besides, this following paragraph seems to be lacking cogency:
" Moreover, moreemployees per patient is weak evidence of better care.
The higher employee-patient ratio might just be the result ofthe organizational efficiency in sp."  Better to be improved with close analysis.