Argument203【challenge yourself小组】第二次作业by小火龙33

小火龙33UID：2448175

     The arguer in this story concludes that smaller, nonprofit hospitals can provide more economical treatment with higher quality than larger, for-profit hospitals. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the following facts as results of a cmparison between a small, nonprofit hospital in Saluda and a large, for-profit hospital in Megaville: in the later one, the average length of a patient’s stay is longer, while the cure rate and patient’s satisfication are both lower, and has fewer employees per patient. Close crutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.
     To begin with, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that shorter stay in hospital equates faster recovery and better treatment. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to suppor this assumption. It is entirely possible that the small, nonprofit hospital, lacking funds to acquire enough equipment and employ enough doctors and nurses, cannot provide adequate beds to all patient in need until they are totally recovered. So the Saluda hospital have to control the use of medical resources. In addition, people seriously ill would go to major hospitals in general. In this case, the average length of a patient’s stay in Saluda hospital would obviously shorter, considering that minor disease is much easier to cure. In short,without ruling out other possible reasons for the shorter average stay, the arguer cannot convince me that the Saluda hospital’s treatment is more economical and of higher quality.
      Secondly, it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion about the quality of the two hospitals’ treatment based on the cure rate. As mentioned above, patients who go to Saluda hospital are probably with some minor disease like cough and cold, which are easy to cure, resulting a higher cure rate. For that matter, it is entirely possible that the small hospital lack the capacity of treating serious diseases, such as cancer or AIDs. So the large hospital is forced to accept the patients who are suffering from these diseases from the small hospital.  Since the arguer fails to account for these possibilities, I remain unconvinced of the conclusion.
     Thirdly, the high employee-patient ratio dose not necessarily reflect the quality of treatment. Since quality is more important than quantity, it is the capacity of each employee rather than the total number of the staff that determins the quality of treatment. Perhaps the staff of Megaville hospital are much more effective. Besides, it is equally possible that the preference of people to major hospital result the lager number of patients , and further more the lower employee-patient ratio.
     Fourthly, the fact that there are few complaints about service at the local hospital is a weak evidence of excellent treatment. Despite the few complaints, the local hospital’s complaint ratio might be higher than the larger hospital in consideration of the number of patients. Besides, the great number of complaints in Megaville hospital are probably due to its high attention to satisfaction of patients, and the patients might be encouraged to propose their comments and suggestions.
     Finally, even if the facts given in the argument can assess the economy and quality of treatment, no evidence is provided to justify that the Saluda hospital and Megaville hospital are representative for the two types of hospitals. It is entirely possible the local hospital is outstanding in small, nonprofit hospitals while Megaville hospital dose not so well in large, for-profit hospital. Without giving the survey with sufficient samples, the arguer fails to convince me that the situation of the two hospitals studied can applied to the general.
     In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvicing as it stands, since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to it. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should give the evidence that the two hospital can represent the general condition of the two types they respectively belong to. To better assess the conclusion, I would need to know whether patients in local hospital stay shorter is duet to better treatment, the percentage of the cured of the all patients and the percentage of complaints of the total number.

[ 本帖最后由 小火龙33 于 2008-7-28 10:01 编辑 ]

tongdawpUID：2500696

Argument203【challenge yourself小组】第二次作业by小火龙33

     The arguer in this story concludes that smaller, nonprofit hospitals can provide more economical treatment with higher quality than larger, for-profit hospitals. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the following facts as results of a cmparison between a small, nonprofit hospital in Saluda and a large, for-profit hospital in Megaville: in the later one, the average length of a patient’s stay is longer, while the cure rate and patient’s satisfication are both lower, and has fewer employees per patient. Close crutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.     To begin with, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that shorter stay in hospital equates faster recovery and better treatment. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to suppor this assumption. It is entirely possible that the small, nonprofit hospital, lacking funds to acquire enough equipment and employ enough doctors and nurses, cannot provide adequate beds to all patient in need until they are totally recovered. So the Saluda hospital have（单数has） to control the use of medical resources. In addition, people seriously ill would go to major hospitals in general. In this case, the average length of a patient’s stay in Saluda hospital would obviously shorter, considering that minor disease is much easier to cure. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the shorter average stay, the arguer cannot convince me that the Saluda hospital’s treatment is more economical and of higher quality.       Secondly, it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion about the quality of the two hospitals’ treatment based on the cure rate. As mentioned above, patients who go to Saluda hospital are probably with some minor disease like cough and cold, which are easy to cure, resulting a higher cure rate. For that matter, it is entirely possible that the small hospital lack the capacity of treating serious diseases, such as cancer or AIDs. So the large hospital is forced to accept the patients who are suffering from these diseases from the small hospital.（is forced to 这个短语有点强，没人说大医院必须接受癌症患者啊） Since the arguer fails to account for these possibilities, I remain unconvinced of the conclusion.     Thirdly, the high employee-patient ratio does not necessarily reflect the quality of treatment. Since quality is more important than quantity, it is the capacity of each employee rather than the total number of the staff that determines the quality of treatment. Perhaps the staff of Megaville hospital are（单数is） much more effective（改为efficient更合理些）. Besides, it is equally possible that the preference of people to major hospital result （result in，result是不及物动词，而且应该加s）the larger number of patients , and further more the lower employee-patient ratio.（如果加一句总结，感觉论证更完整些）     Fourthly, the fact that there are few complaints about service at the local hospital is a weak evidence of excellent treatment. Despite the few complaints, the local hospital’s complaint ratio might be higher than the larger hospital in consideration of the number of patients. Besides, the great number of complaints in Megaville hospital are probably due to its high attention to satisfaction of patients, and the patients might be encouraged to propose their comments and suggestions.（还是少了点总结性的话）Finally, even if the facts given in the argument can assess the economy and quality of treatment, no evidence is provided to justify that the Saluda hospital and Megaville hospital are representative for the two types of hospitals. It is entirely possible the local hospital is outstanding in small, nonprofit hospitals while Megaville hospital dose not so well in large, for-profit hospital. Without giving the survey with sufficient samples, the arguer fails to convince me that the situation of the two hospitals studied can applied to the general.In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvicing as it stands, since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to it. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should give the evidence that the two hospital can represent the general condition of the two types they respectively belong to. To better assess the conclusion, I would need to know whether patients in local hospital stay shorter is duet to better treatment, the percentage of the cured of the all patients and the percentage of complaints of the total number.

作者的逻辑很清晰，论证很严密，很好，值得学习。