Argument203 [Victors小组]coraone 第十次作业

coraoneUID: 2233021

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: 676          TIME: 0:50:00          DATE: 2007-6-17
1.急于概括：所有的小心非盈利医院治疗比大型盈利医院经济实惠
1）S镇和M市的情况不相同，两个医院不具有可比较性
2）错误类推，S和M的情况不反映全部

2.错误因果：S的医院服务质量好
1）因为不知道基数，所以治愈率和抱怨不可比
2）不知道就诊的病情，可能S的病情都是比较轻的，遇到重病大家都到M医院
3）医务人员数量多，不等于医疗水平高，可能专业水平不如M好
4）未提及医疗设备等

3.错误因果：S的医院经济
1）逗留时间长不等于花费药费多（错误因果）
2）非盈利的医院不一定医疗花费就比盈利医院多，因为可能自身进药什么的成本都比较高*
Merely based on the plausible comparison between the nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda(S) and the for-profit hospital in the city of Megaville(M), the author draws the conslusion that it is more economical and better quality of the treatment in nonprofit hospitals compare with the larger and for-profit one. The reasoning seems superficial plausible at first glance, but it all collapse as soon as you have a comprehensive consideration with it. The argument is logically flawed in several critical respects, which render it unpersuasive and groundless.

First and foremost, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization to conclude the treatment of small and nonprofit hospitals is more economical and better quality universally according to the separate example drew form the comparisons between hospitals in S and M. On one hand, the situation of the hospitals in S and M is not comparable at all for the reason that there are two many different condition between a town and a city.  It is commonsense for people that the medical treatment situations, the incomes of civilizations, the attitude toward the health and so on are significant factors to have impact on the treatment offered by hospitals. On the other hand, even if the comparison have sense for the following deduction, one case in point is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. So it is incredible for the author to indicate the universal treatment of the hospitals in different place. Accordingly, without clarifying these two critical aspects, the conclusion is unconvincing.

In my next analysis, the author falsely indicates a gratuitous assertion that the treatment in nonprofit hospital in the town of S is better quality basing on the ungrounded evidence offered by the author. First, because the cardinal number is not given, the cure rate and complaints about service are not comparable at all. It is certainly possible that there only 20 patients with severe illness go to the hospital in S for treatment per month, and then it is not unexpect result that only few patients could be recovery or complaint about the service. Second, even granted what the number of people who go to the both hospital is same, it is still incomparable of the cure rate without clarifying the illness condition of patients. The possibility cannot be eliminated that the patients with serious disease prefer to go to the large hospital in city rather than a small one in a town. If this is the case, it is certainly that the cure rate of slight illness is higher. Third, it does not naturally warrant the assertion that The S hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in M, and thus the quality of treatment in S hospital are better. What the real concerning with the medical treatment is the level of expertise and the condition of facilities but not the number of employees. Thus, lacking a well-round consideration about these and other alternatives, the author's assumption is gratuitous.

In the final analyzing, even through the S hospital has a better treatment quality, the author still hasty to assert that the S hospital is economical. The author observes that the average length of a patient's stay in S hospital is two days which is less than the M hospital's, then asserts that less money used in S hospital. While this may be true in some cases, but it is equally possible that the treatment expenses are high in S hospital result in the high cost of medicament even through the used time for treatment is less and even through the S hospital is a nonprofit one. Thus, the author cannot make me trust this assertion without clarifying the specific treatment expenses and other charges of the two hospitals.

In sum, suffered all these logical failings above, the argument certainly cannot be established. The author should offer more evidence about the specific situation about the two hospitals in S and M, and even more statistics about the universal situation about all hospitals, and fortify the reason line to up hold the conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 coraone 于 2007-6-23 18:20 编辑 ]

hlzhang431UID: 2297648

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: 676          TIME: 0:50:00          DATE: 2007-6-17
1.急于概括：所有的小心非盈利医院治疗比大型盈利医院经济实惠
1）S镇和M市的情况不相同，两个医院不具有可比较性
2）错误类推，S和M的情况不反映全部

2.错误因果：S的医院服务质量好
1）因为不知道基数，所以治愈率和抱怨不可比
2）不知道就诊的病情，可能S的病情都是比较轻的，遇到重病大家都到M医院
3）医务人员数量多，不等于医疗水平高，可能专业水平不如M好
4）未提及医疗设备等

3.错误因果：S的医院经济
1）逗留时间长不等于花费药费多（错误因果）
2）非盈利的医院不一定医疗花费就比盈利医院多，因为可能自身进药什么的成本都比较高*
Merely based on the plausible comparison between the nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda(S) and the for-profit hospital in the city of Megaville(M), the author draws the conslusion that it is more economical and better quality of the treatment in nonprofit hospitals compare with the larger and for-profit one. The reasoning seems superficial plausible at first glance, but it all collapse as soon as you have a comprehensive consideration with it. The argument is logically flawed in several critical respects, which render it unpersuasive and groundless.

First and foremost, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization to conclude the treatment of small and nonprofit hospitals is more economical and better quality universally according to the separate example drew form the comparisons between hospitals in S and M. On one hand, the situation of the hospitals in S and M is not comparable at all for the reason that there are two many different condition between a town and a city.  It is commonsense for people that the medical treatment situations, the incomes of civilizations, the attitude toward the health and so on are significant factors to have impact on(去掉) the treatment offered by hospitals. On the other hand, even if the comparison have sense for the following deduction, one case in point is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. So it is incredible for the author to indicate the universal treatment of the hospitals in different place. Accordingly, without clarifying these two critical aspects, the conclusion is unconvincing.

In my next analysis, the author falsely indicates a gratuitous assertion that the treatment in nonprofit hospital in the town of S is better quality basing on the ungrounded evidence offered by the author. First, because the cardinal number is not given, the cure rate and complaints about service are not comparable at all. It is certainly possible that there only 20 patients with severe illness go to the hospital in S for treatment per month, and then it is not unexpect result that only few patients could be recovery or complaint about the service. Second, even granted what the number of people who go to the both hospital is same(用the same), it is still incomparable of the cure rate without clarifying the illness condition of patients. The possibility cannot be eliminated that the patients with serious disease prefer to go to the large hospital in city rather than a small one in a town. If this is the case, it is certainly that the cure rate of slight illness is higher. Third, it does not naturally warrant the assertion that The S hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in M, and thus the quality of treatment in S hospital are better. What the real concerning with the medical treatment is the level of expertise and the condition of facilities but not the number of employees. Thus, lacking a well-round consideration about these and other alternatives, the author's assumption is gratuitous.

In the final analyzing, even through the S hospital has a better treatment quality, the author still hasty to assert that the S hospital is economical. The author observes that the average length of a patient's stay in S hospital is two days which is less than the M hospital's, then asserts that less money used in S hospital. While this may be true in some cases, but it is equally possible that the treatment expenses are high in S hospital result in the high cost of medicament even through the used time for treatment is less and even through the S hospital is a nonprofit one (句子结构混乱，表达不清楚时还是用短句吧). Thus, the author cannot make me trust this assertion without clarifying the specific treatment expenses and other charges of the two hospitals.

In sum, suffered all these logical failings above, the argument certainly cannot be established. The author should offer more evidence about the specific situation about the two hospitals in S and M, and even more statistics about the universal situation about all hospitals, and fortify the reason line to up hold the conclusion.


lz分析得比较到位
但是写作过程中出现了很多语法问题
希望以后多注意

solartorchUID: 2244205

Merely based on the plausible comparison between the nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda(S) and the for-profit hospital in the city of Megaville(M), the author draws the conslusion that it is more economical and better quality of the treatment in nonprofit hospitals compare with the larger and for-profit one. The reasoning seems superficial plausible at first glance, but it all collapse as soon as you have a comprehensive consideration with it. The argument is logically flawed in several critical respects, which render it unpersuasive and groundless.

First and foremost, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization to conclude the treatment of small and nonprofit hospitals is more economical and better quality universally according to the separate example drew form the comparisons between hospitals in S and M. On one hand, the situation of the hospitals in S and M is not comparable at all for the reason that there are two many different condition between a town and a city.  It is commonsense for people that the medical treatment situations, the incomes of civilizations, the attitude toward the health and so on are significant factors to have impact on the treatment offered by hospitals. On the other hand, even if the comparison have sense for the following deduction, one case in point is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. So it is incredible 这个词用的有先例吗？用ridiculous是不是稳妥些 for the author to indicate the universal treatment of the hospitals in different place. Accordingly, without clarifying these two critical aspects, the conclusion is unconvincing.

In my next analysis, the author falsely indicates a gratuitous assertion that the treatment in nonprofit hospital in the town of S is better quality basing on the ungrounded evidence offered by the author. First, because the cardinal number is not given, the cure rate and complaints about service are not comparable at all. It is certainly possible that there only 20 patients with severe illness go to the hospital in S for treatment per month, and then it is not unexpect result that only few patients could be recovery or complaint about the service. Second, even granted what the number of people who go to the both hospital is same, it is still incomparable of the cure rate without clarifying the illness condition of patients. The possibility cannot be eliminated that the patients with serious disease prefer to go to the large hospital in city rather than a small one in a town. If this is the case, it is certainly that the cure rate of slight illness is higher. Third, it does not naturally warrant the assertion that The S hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in M, and thus the quality of treatment in S hospital are better. What the real concerning with the medical treatment is the level of expertise and the condition of facilities but not the number of employees. Thus, lacking a well-round consideration about these and other alternatives, the author's assumption is gratuitous.

In the final analyzing, even through the S hospital has a better treatment quality, the author still hasty to assert that the S hospital is economical. The author observes that the average length of a patient's stay in S hospital is two days which is less than the M hospital's, then asserts that less money used in S hospital. 题目中并没有明确的这种因果关系While this may be true in some cases, but it is equally possible that the treatment expenses are high in S hospital result in the high cost of medicament even through the used time for treatment is less and even through the S hospital is a nonprofit one. Thus, the author cannot make me trust this assertion without clarifying the specific treatment expenses and other charges of the two hospitals.

In sum, suffered all these logical failings above, the argument certainly cannot be established. The author should offer more evidence about the specific situation about the two hospitals in S and M, and even more statistics about the universal situation about all hospitals, and fortify the reason line to up hold the conclusion.

逻辑方面基本没有问题了，语言有很多明显错，相信楼主只是因为写得太快了，我没有改出来。