Argument203 【challenge yourself】第二次作业by linyunf

linyunfUID：2405027

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."

Argument提纲
1：说的太vague，没有具体的数据，达不到清晰的效果。
包括：（1）什么是大什么是小？（2）治愈率的两倍是多少？可能的原因呢？（3）更多的雇员是多少？这些雇员的素质一定高么？（4）抱怨少，那抱怨的内容是什么？是小的方面还是大的错误？
2:根本没提多少价钱，怎么能说是economical呢？按照一般的常识，如果雇员的效率一样的条件下，人数多就加钱多啊。
3：怎么能推广来说，大的profit医院一定好呢？

In the argument the author asserts that generally the treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and be of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. In supporting the conclusion the arguer compares the size of two hospitals-one is smaller and non-profit, the other is bigger and for-profit- and some other aspects which seem to be in favor of its assertion. However, after careful scrutiny we’ll find the argument suffers from several flaws that render its conclusion meaningless.

First, the argument lacks of some important details that are crucial to our understanding, making the text too vague. For example, how does the arguer define ‘big’ and ‘small’ hospital? What kind of disease do the two hospitals cure? What about the difference in the infrastructure, professional expertise of the hospital staff, availability of super specialists and methods of treatment used? It’s probably possible that the so-called big hospital has much more specialists than the small one, and their methods and efficiency are better than the non-profit hospital, so they don’t need so many clews. Maybe the big hospital receives more severe patients, as a result, the average stay in this hospital is longer and the cure rate is not as good as the small hospital considering about the difficulties of curing such patients even though it has expertise and advanced methods. It may also cause the result that the big hospital receives more complaints. Without ruling out such possibilities, the argument is unconvincing at all.

Second, the argument fails to provide the cost of two hospitals and unreasonably contends that the non-profit, small hospital is more economical. Probably, under the assumption that the efficiencies of two hospitals’ clews are at the same level or the small one is at a higher level, which the arguer needs to support his or her contention, then the small hospital will charge more as it has more employees. So the arguer has to provide the exact cost to support the assertion.

Third, the arguer draws a conclusion that treatment in smaller, non-profit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals, which definitely commits the fallacy of false analogy. How the conclusion form if the arguer only compares two hospitals even if his or her comparison makes sense. So the arguer must provide more so-called small and big hospitals’ information to say this.

In sum, the argument is lack of details to support its conclusion. To better the argument, the arguer needs to provide the exact cost and just conclude that the very small, no-profit hospital is economical and better than the very big, for-profit one.

sabrinabaobaoUID：2515866

In the argument the author asserts that generally the treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and be（be可以不要） of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. In supporting the conclusion the arguer compares the size of two hospitals-one is smaller and non-profit, the other is bigger and for-profit- and some other aspects which seem to be in favor of its assertion. However, after careful scrutiny we’ll find the argument suffers from several flaws that render its conclusion meaningless.First, the argument lacks of some important details that are crucial to our understanding, making the text too vague. For example, how does the arguer define ‘big’ and ‘small’ hospital? What kind of disease do the two hospitals cure? What about the difference in the infrastructure, professional expertise of the hospital staff, availability of super specialists and methods of treatment used? It’s probably possible that the so-called big hospital has much more specialists than the small one, and their methods and efficiency are better than the non-profit hospital, so they don’t need so many clews. Maybe the big hospital receives more severe patients, as a result, the average stay in this hospital is longer and the cure rate is not as good as the small hospital considering about the difficulties of curing such patients even though it has expertise and advanced methods. It may also cause the result that the big hospital receives more complaints. Without ruling out such possibilities, the argument is unconvincing at all.（准确指出了作者在比较上出现的漏洞，还提出了其它的可能性。）Second, the argument fails to provide the cost of two hospitals and unreasonably contends that the non-profit, small hospital is more economical. Probably, under the assumption that the efficiencies of two hospitals’ clews are at the same level or the small one is at a higher level, which the arguer needs to support his or her contention, （这句话表意不是非常明确，可以用让步或者假设语气，可能会更好吧）then the small hospital will charge more as it has more employees. So the arguer has to provide the exact cost to support the assertion.（这一攻击点很好，我完全没有想到啊，不过展开的时候逻辑再清晰一点就好了）Third, the arguer draws a conclusion that treatment in smaller, non-profit hospitals is more economical and of better quality（可以用概括一点的写法避免一再引用题目中的原话） than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals, which definitely commits the fallacy of false analogy. How the conclusion form if the arguer only compares two hospitals even if his or her comparison makes sense. So the arguer must provide more so-called small and big hospitals’ information to say this.（说了错误类比，但是缺乏具体展开，有点仓促）In sum, the argument is lack of details to support its conclusion. To better the argument, the arguer needs to provide the exact cost and just conclude that the very small, no-profit hospital is economical and better than the very big, for-profit one.

条例很清晰，但是攻击点局限于类比和比较上的俄错误，其实论断很大的问题在于没有构成因果关系，再看到这一点就更好了。还有就是语言要注意多样性哦:)

wanghugigiUID：2465119

In the argument the author asserts that generally the treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and be of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. In supporting the conclusion the arguer compares the size of two hospitals-one is smaller and non-profit, the other is bigger and for-profit- and some other aspects which seem to be in favor of its assertion. However, after careful scrutiny we’ll find the argument suffers from several flaws that render its conclusion meaningless.

First, the argument lacks of some important details that are crucial to our understanding, making the text too vague. For example, how does the arguer define ‘big’ and ‘small’ hospital? What kind of disease do the two hospitals cure? What about the difference in the infrastructure, professional expertise of the hospital staff, availability of super specialists and methods of treatment used? It’s probably possible that the so-called big hospital has much more specialists than the small one, and their methods and efficiency are better than the non-profit hospital, so they don’t need so many clews. Maybe the big hospital receives more severe patients, as a result, the average stay in this hospital is longer and the cure rate is not as good as the small hospital considering about the difficulties of curing such patients even though it has expertise and advanced methods. It may also cause the result that the big hospital receives more complaints. Without ruling out such possibilities, the argument is unconvincing at all.
整段说阐述数据不够具体，但没有说不够具体导致的结果。
Second, the argument fails to provide the cost of two hospitals and unreasonably contends that the non-profit, small hospital is more economical. Probably, under the assumption that the efficiencies of two hospitals’ clews are at the same level or the small one is at a higher level, which the arguer needs to support his or her contention, then the small hospital will charge more as it has more employees. So the arguer has to provide the exact cost to support the assertion.

Third, the arguer draws a conclusion that treatment in smaller, non-profit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals, which definitely commits the fallacy of false analogy. How the conclusion form if the arguer only compares two hospitals even if his or her comparison makes sense. So the arguer must provide more so-called small and big hospitals’ information to say this.

In sum, the argument is lack of details to support its conclusion. To better the argument, the arguer needs to provide the exact cost and just conclude that the very small, no-profit hospital is economical and better than the very big, for-profit one.

从段落分布上看，第一点的论述最为详细，但确实错误中最没有力度的，建议将第一点中的数据不足分别列到由 于不足导致其推论不够合理 的错误下。
错误的逻辑关系没有很清晰。

linyunfUID：2405027

谢啦:handshake
你是说把那些比较一段一段列出来攻击么？这样是保险些。
确实我第三段没有展开，你觉得这篇argu有这个逻辑错误（不准确的推广)么

[ 本帖最后由 linyunf 于 2008-7-29 01:52 编辑 ]

linyunfUID：2405027

谢啦。:)
我觉得这篇argu没有因果关系上的逻辑错误。
文章只是列举了几个有利与结论的比较，这些直接就是他的证据了。
我看你的文章才发现你指的因果关系逻辑错误是这样的：
Thirdly, the author assumes that there is a causal relationship between the fact that hospital in Saluda has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville and the claim that the former has a better service. Actually the author oversimplify the cause and result, for it is equally possible that the small hospital has more employee only because they are unskilled and inefficient, on the contrary, the staff in the large hospital are more professional and efficient. Without ruling out all the other requisite factors, the author cannot convince me.
the fact ------the claim.这也叫因果关系么？这只是他的证据---结论罢了。
按照你的看法，那么题目中的结论一定是“果”了。
我觉得这有点牵强。我认为的因果关系比如我们第三次argu中青少年晚上瞎逛-----晚上青少年犯罪高。而因果关系中的果不应该牵涉到题中的结论。
我的看法是这样，请指教。
还有，逻辑错误确实是重要的，那文中是否一定要直接提出逻辑错误的类型呢?你觉得这篇argu有这个逻辑错误（不准确的推广)么?

[ 本帖最后由 linyunf 于 2008-7-29 01:52 编辑 ]

wanghugigiUID：2465119

当然有这个错误
文章最大的毛病就是错误类比，没有比较两个地区的具体情况就将另一个地区的措施引入该地，典型的错误类比。
第二段一直强调数据不够合理，但是却没有更深入的分析不合理带来的后果，太过表层了。

[ 本帖最后由 wanghugigi 于 2008-7-29 18:10 编辑 ]