Argument203 [Victors小组]第十一周作业 by solartorch

solartorchUID: 2244205

203The 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."

1，        时间长短Cure rate不能证明什么，说不定正是由于医术好去的都是疑难杂症所以住院时间长，cure rate低   
疗效要看employee的质量而不是数量，人多反而效率低
Complain, 说不定是因为非盈利的关系，人们对盈利的挑剔些
2，        说economical也不一定对，非盈利钱花得少，但效果不一定好，无法在同样的效果下比较
3，        即使说Saluda比起Megaville确实要更好更省钱，也不能无条件推广。

WORDS: 676         

While it seems true that the facts presented in the above argument contribute to the idea that small, nonprofit hospitals are more economical and better on treatment than their contrary ones, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny---mainly in three respects.

To begin with, the evidences furnished by the author in this above feature story cannot effectively demonstrate that Saluda hospital has better treatment quality than Megaville hospital. First of all, the average shorter length of patient's stay and the higher cure rate cannot hardly contribute to the conclusion by all means. The author fails to consider the possible distinctions on patients between these to hospitals. It is entirely possible that patients go to Megaville hospital are more likely to have more serious diseases while patients under treatment in Saluda hospital are all small sickness like catching a cold. This point in the contrary verifies that Megaville hospital has better ability on treatment and patients with harder diseases trust it more than Saluda hospital.  In this case, the length of patient's stay is inevitably longer and the cure rate is unavoidably lower in Megaville hospital. Secondly, the fact that Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than Megaville cannot convince me that the treatment received in Saluda hospital is better. Common sense tell us that it is quality that decides but not quantity. Perhaps in Saluda hospital, most of the employees are not eligible enough in carrying out treatment. For the matter that Saluda hospital is an nonprofit hospital, it is totally possible that most of its staff are volunteers who without professional training and are merely doing part-time jobs there. In that matter, the evidence provided by the author about the employees per patient is utterly useless. Thirdly, fewer complaints about service does not have the casual relation with better treatment quality. For example, maybe it is just because Saluda hospital is nonprofit so people are not that demanding for its service than in Megaville---a for-profit hospital. Let alone the fact mentioned above that the treatments in Saluda hospital are comparatively simpler because of the less serious disease. Without ruling out all these possibilities or even fails to consider them, the author's conclusion that Saluda hospital does better on treatment than Megaville hospital is barely based on several unwarranted evidences and should be highly questioned.

In addition, it is lacking of evidence and consideration for the author to conclude that Saluda hospital is more economical than Megaville hospital. Seems the only evidence provided in the above feature story is that Saluda hospital is nonprofit while Megaville hospital is not. Firstly we cannot exclude the fact that even if Saluda hospital is nonprofit, it needs to raise money for the rent, materials or salaries of doctors and so on. Thus the expense in Saluda is possibly even higher due to the low efficiency caused by non-profession for example on the similar type of sickness. Also, whether it's economical or not does not only depend on the money paid but also related to the treatment patients get. Standing on this point that the quality of treatment cannot be promised, even though the expense is less we are not supposed to consider it as "economical".

Lastly, even if we accept that Saluda hospital are better on treatment and more economical than Megaville hospital based on all the evidences furnished, the inference to all the counterpart of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals are groundless. It is totally possible that the facts given in this feature story only concern with those particular two hospitals. When referring to the nonprofit and for-profit hospitals as two distinctive groups, more evidences and reasoning should be given in order to make sense. The conclusion of the author is seriously gratuitous without proper analyze and reasoning from particular case to the generality.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary investigations.

[ 本帖最后由 solartorch 于 2007-6-23 16:14 编辑 ]

gyyxUID: 2290150

Argument203 [Victors小组]第十一周作业 by solartorch
203The 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."

1，        时间长短Cure rate不能证明什么，说不定正是由于医术好去的都是疑难杂症所以住院时间长，cure rate低   
疗效要看employee的质量而不是数量，人多反而效率低
Complain, 说不定是因为非盈利的关系，人们对盈利的挑剔些
2，        说economical也不一定对，非盈利钱花得少，但效果不一定好，无法在同样的效果下比较
3，        即使说Saluda比起Megaville确实要更好更省钱，也不能无条件推广。

WORDS: 676         

While it seems true that the facts presented in the above argument contribute to the idea that small, nonprofit hospitals are more economical and better on treatment than their contrary ones, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny---mainly in three respects.

To begin with, the evidences furnished by the author in this above feature story cannot effectively demonstrate that Saluda hospital has better treatment quality than Megaville hospital. First of all, the average shorter length of patient's stay and the higher cure rate cannot hardly【这两个词能连用吗，not不是已经否定了吗，hardly也是否定啊】 contribute to the conclusion by all means. The author fails to consider the possible distinctions on patients between these to hospitals. It is entirely possible that patients go to Megaville hospital are more likely to have more serious diseases while patients under treatment in Saluda hospital are all small sickness like catching a cold. This point in the contrary verifies that Megaville hospital has better ability on treatment and patients with harder diseases trust it more than Saluda hospital.  In this case, the length of patient's stay is inevitably longer and the cure rate is unavoidably lower in Megaville hospital. Secondly, the fact that Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than Megaville cannot convince me that the treatment received in Saluda hospital is better. Common sense tell us that it is quality that decides but not quantity. Perhaps in Saluda hospital, most of the employees are not eligible enough in carrying out treatment. For the matter that Saluda hospital is an nonprofit hospital, it is totally possible that most of its staff are volunteers who without professional training and are merely doing part-time jobs there. In that matter, the evidence provided by the author about the employees per patient is utterly useless. Thirdly, fewer complaints about service does not have the casual relation with better treatment quality. For example, maybe it is just because Saluda hospital is nonprofit so people are not that demanding for its service than in Megaville---a for-profit hospital. Let alone the fact mentioned above that the treatments in Saluda hospital are comparatively simpler because of the less serious disease. Without ruling out all these possibilities or even fails to consider them, the author's conclusion that Saluda hospital does better on treatment【改成quality更好些，直批】 than Megaville hospital is barely based on several unwarranted evidences and should be highly questioned.

In addition, it is lacking of evidence and consideration for the author to conclude that Saluda hospital is more economical than Megaville hospital. Seems the only evidence provided in the above feature story is that Saluda hospital is nonprofit while Megaville hospital is not. Firstly we cannot exclude the fact that even if Saluda hospital is nonprofit, it needs to raise money for the rent, materials or salaries of doctors and so on. Thus the expense in Saluda is possibly even higher due to the low efficiency caused by non-profession for example on the similar type of sickness. Also, whether it's economical or not does not only depend on the money paid but also related to the treatment patients get. Standing on this point that the quality of treatment cannot be promised, even though the expense is less we are not supposed to consider it as "economical".

Lastly, even if we accept that Saluda hospital are better on treatment and more economical than Megaville hospital based on all the evidences furnished, the inference to all the counterpart of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals are groundless. It is totally possible that the facts given in this feature story only concern with those particular two hospitals. When referring to the nonprofit and for-profit hospitals as two distinctive groups, more evidences and reasoning should be given in order to make sense. The conclusion of the author is seriously gratuitous without proper analyze and reasoning from particular case to the generality.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary investigations.
点评：说起来A写这么长的还是第一次见到，批驳的很是全面，建议如果限时，就挑重点批就好，第一个不用那么详细。