Argument 203<challenge yourself >第2次作业by Tracycxt

TracycxtUID：2505888

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."


In this argument, the author concludes that non-profit hospital could be able to supply more convenient and effective and economical service than larger for-profit hospital. To support the conclusion, the author provides the statistic of survey, such as the period of time patients spend in hospital, the number of employees to justify his conclusion, and the mount of complaints. At first glance, the argument is somewhat reasonable, but a careful examination reveals that it suffers from a series of flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
To begin with, one problem with the argument is that the author overlooks plenty of possibilities to analyze the reason why patients would spend less time staying in hospital than those who get diagnose from for-profit hospitals. It is entirely possible that being aware of the quality of apparatus and the ability of doctors, people who suffer from a serious disease have inclination to obtain prescription from for-profit hospital, and it is easily consider that the more expensive price it costs, the more useful prescription the patients acquire.  Without ruling out these possibilities, it is too hastily for author to conclude that the different span could accurately reflect the quality of treatment.
Similarly, the author unfair infers that the cure rate would be based on the conclusion that it is worthwhile of selecting for-profit hospital, for a variety of explanations. Perhaps many more patients who catch a cold would like to get treatment from nonprofit hospital, since the cold would not be viewed as hazards so that it is not necessary to require high-pay diagnosis from for-profit hospital, or perhaps because the nonprofit hospitals are negative supervised and are not largely responsible for the disease, even if the patients have yet not completely regain health, they also report the high cure rate.
Finally, even assuming that the possible fault I mentioned before cannot deep affect the comment of these two different hospital , it is not sufficient to indicate that the nonprofit hospital receives fewer patient complaints amount to higher quality and efficiency of treatment . It is entirely that the hospitals encourage patients to complain so that it purposely provides them a department to resolve complaint about service and diagnosis. Common sense infers me that for-profit hospital lay more stress on the response of patients because of the dramatic competition among hospital.
In sum, the argument is soundless because the evidence cited in the analysis can not lend credible support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author has to demonstrate the detailed information of symptom of disease in different patients. In order to evaluate the argument, we need more evidence to substantiate that the nonprofit hospitals indeed provide patients more efficiency and better quality.

qilluraUID：2186638

In this argument, the author concludes that non-profit hospital could be able to supply more convenient and effective and economical service than larger for-profit hospital. To support the conclusion, the author provides the statistic of survey, such as the period of time patients spend in hospital, the number of employees to justify his conclusion, and the mount of complaints.(这一句顺序有点奇怪to justify his conclusion应该放后面) At first glance, the argument is somewhat reasonable, but a careful examination reveals that it suffers from a series of flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
To begin with, one problem with the argument is that the author overlooks plenty of possibilities to analyze the reason why patients would spend less time staying in hospital than those who get diagnose from for-profit hospitals. It is entirely possible that being aware of the quality of apparatus and the ability of doctors, people who suffer from a serious disease have inclination to obtain prescription from for-profit hospital, and it is easily consider(？？) that the more expensive price it costs, the more useful prescription the patients acquire.  Without ruling out these possibilities, it is too (hasty) for author to conclude that the different span could accurately reflect the quality of treatment.
Similarly, the author unfairly infers that the cure rate would be based on the conclusion that it is worthwhile of selecting for-profit hospital, for a variety of explanations.(看不懂。。。) Perhaps many more patients who catch a cold would like to get treatment from nonprofit hospital, since the cold would not be viewed as hazards so that it is not necessary to require high-pay diagnosis from for-profit hospital, or perhaps because the nonprofit hospitals are negative supervised and are not largely responsible for the disease, even if the patients have yet not completely regain health, they also report the high cure rate.
Finally, even assuming that the possible fault I mentioned before cannot deep affect the comment of these two different hospital , it is not sufficient to indicate that the nonprofit hospital receives fewer patient complaints amount to higher quality and efficiency of treatment . It is entirely (what？)that the hospitals encourage patients to complain so that it purposely provides them a department to resolve complaint about service and diagnosis. Common sense infers me that for-profit hospital lay more stress on the response of patients because of the dramatic competition among hospital.
In sum, the argument is soundless(unsound?) because the evidence cited in the analysis can not lend credible support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author has to demonstrate the detailed information of symptom of disease in different patients. In order to evaluate the argument, we need more evidence to substantiate that the nonprofit hospitals indeed provide patients more efficiency and better quality.

qilluraUID：2186638

思路还不错 但是语言很乱◎◎
感觉是写的很匆忙 肯定是临时敢的。。。