Argument203 第39次作业(模考10) 请拍拍 （写的都还没有被看过呢）

pinuoUID: 2328081

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: 430          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-9-3 9:26:43

The author, in the story, draws the conclusion that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals can offer better quality and more economical service than those larger, for-profit hospitals according to a set of data. The argument is problematic in several aspects, thus render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the comparasion of average length of a patient's stay in hospital is insufficient to show the quality of service. The fact that patient stayed at small, nonprofit hospital for average two days while for average six days at large for-profit hospital doesn't mean the latter provied better quality of service. There are other factors--rather than the quality of service--affect the average length of a pitient's stay. For example, the small, nonprofit hospital has poor instruments and insufficient bed, thus they have to let the patient leave the hospital and to continue there treatment in their home instead of accepting fully observe and treatment in hospital in order to giving their beds to the new patients who are more urgent to be treated in hospital.  Second, the small, noprofit hospital has lower standard for the patient to leave the hospital.

In addition, the information that the cure rate among patients in Saluda hospital is about twice that of a big, for-profit hospital in Megaville is not convincing to indicate that the quality of service of former is better than latter. It is highly possible the patient choose the latter is those who suffered more serious disease. which make it hard to cure completely even adopt the most advanced medical service. While the the patients of Megaville are generally the ones who have small daily disease which can easily be cured after eat some medicine.

Finally, the further fact the author offered that Saluda hospital has more emplyees per patient than Megaville cannot convince me that the former's service is better than latter's. It is entirely possible the employees in Sauda have poorer educational and professional backgroud, and has lower efficiency than their counterparts in Megaville hospital, therefore they cannot provide such good service as the latter's. And few complaits about service at Saluda is not sure that they offer better service. Because they are nonprofit hospital, the patients there have lower expectation accordingly.

In sum, to convincing me that the Saluda hospital is more economical and offer better quality than the Megaville hospital, the author need provide evidence that the shoter average length of stay can reflect that the former has better quality of service, and higher cure rate and less complaints are also convincing to show they have better quality

pinuoUID: 2328081

改正基本错误。

The author, in the story, draws the conclusion that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospital of Sauda can offer better quality and more economical service than the larger, for-profit hospital of Megaville according to a set of data. The argument is problematic in several aspects, thus render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the average length of a patient's stay in hospital is insufficient to show the quality of service. The fact that patient stayed at small, nonprofit hospital for average two days while for average six days at large for-profit hospital doesn't mean the latter provides better quality of service. There are other factors--rather than the quality of service--affect the average length of a patient's stay. For example, the small, nonprofit hospital has poor instruments and insufficient bed, thus they have to let the patient leave the hospital before they recover from the illness completely and to continue there treatment in their home instead of accepting fully monitor and treatment in hospital in order to giving their beds to the new patients who are more urgent to be treated in hospital.  Second, it is merely because the small, no-profit hospital has lower standard for the patient to leave the hospital.

In addition, the information that the cure rate among patients in Saluda hospital is about twice that of a big, for-profit hospital in Megaville is not convincing to indicate that the quality of service of former is better than latter. It is highly possible the patient choose the latter is those who suffered from more serious disease, which make it hard to cure completely even adopt the most advanced medical service. While the patients of Megaville are generally the ones who have small daily disease which can easily be cured after eat some ordinary medicine.

Finally, the further fact the author offered that Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than Megaville hospital is weak to indicate that the former's service is better than latter's. It is entirely possible the employees in Sauda have poorer educational and professional background, and has lower efficiency than their counterparts in Megaville hospital, therefore they cannot provide such good service as the latter's. And few complaints about service at Saluda not surely implicate that they offer better service. Because perhaps they are nonprofit hospital, the patients there have lower expectation accordingly. Or because the Megaville hospital is more open to receive feedback of patients than Saluda.

In sum, to convincing me that the Saluda hospital is more economical and offer better quality than the Megaville hospital, the author need provide evidence that the diseases of patients in two hospitals are comparable thus the average length of stay can indicate the quality of treatment. And the author also need present evidence that competent of the staff of both hospitals are also comparable thus the staffs of Saluda hold advantage against those of Megaville not merely in term of number. To better assess the argument, I need the evidence the patients evaluate the service of both hospital on the same standard.