argument203 【09年2月-3月GRE作文冲刺组】严重鄙视自己....

_xtUID: 2599830

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: 379
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-3-4 18:48:29

The speaker asserts that small, nonprofit hospitals are superior to larger, for-profit hospital on the basis of a comparison between a smaller, nonprofit hospital Saluda and hospital Megaville, which is larger and for-profit. The comparison the speaker cites shows that Saluda serves a higher cure rate and more economical treatment to patients than Megaville does. Close scrutiny of these evidences, however, reveals that they lent little support to the speaker's assertion.

The first problem with the argument is that the speaker equals the time for treatment and cure rate to the quality of treatment. However, the argument doesn't provide any evidence to justify this assumption. For that matter, conversely, it's possible that longer time guarantees a better treatment since the doctors can observe the patients a few days more. Moreover, the speaker assumes that the quality of treatment is proportional with the treatment time and cure rate. However it is not substantiated in the argument. The speaker ignores the disparity of treatment time and cure rate for different diseases or injuries. Perhaps, since the Saluda is a small hospital, the medical facilities in Saluda in not so advanced that it can only cure those patients who are not seriously injured or ill, which need less time to recover and easily cured. If so, either the case will undermine the speaker's assertion.

Secondly, the speaker assumes that more employees per patient assure a better service. Yet, he fails to provide evidence to support this assumption. The author fails to inform us the profile of professional skills of each employees and how many hours they work a day. For that matter, it is possible that many of the employees in Saluda are part-time workers and poorly trained while employees in Megaville work longer time a day and well-trained. If it is the case, even if the number of employee for per patient in Saluda in larger, it can not indicate that service of Saluda is better.

Thirdly, the speaker also assumes that less complaints from patient indicates better treatment. However, it is unwarranted. Since Megaville is a for-profit hospital, it is naturally that the patients’ expectation for its treatment is higher which leads to more complaints. But it doesn’t necessarily indicate that treatment in Megaville is worse than that of Saluda. Or, perhaps patients in Saluda are not so willing to complain about the service in Saluda hospital just because their clemency on the local hospital while patients in Megaville are often tourists.

Finally, the speaker hastily generalizes the conclusion that smaller, nonprofit hospital is better only resting on the comparison between two local hospitals. For that matter, even assuming that Saluda is better than Megaville, this fact can't necessarily reflect the profile about the overall hospitals. It is possible that Saluda has received much financial support from local government or local charities with which it can buy more advanced medical facilities and employ more professional doctors while other small and nonprofit hospitals didn't received such aid.(时间到)

In conclusion, the assertion in this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To justify it, the speaker assure me that profile of the patients involving the treatment time and cure rate in Saluda and Megaville are the same. The speaker also must inform us the number of hours the employees in these two hospitals work a day and the number or the percentage of the part-time workers. He must relevant provide evidence to assure us that all the patients in Saluda are willing to complain. If the speaker tends to draw conclusion from this comparison, he must convince me that Saluda and Megaville is sufficient to reflect the overall hospitals as a whole.

血喑UID: 2603208

不知道你什么时候考试，但是还是应该确保写完，脑子清楚了时间自然会慢慢变少的，限定时间并不是好的办法。
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: 379
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-3-4 18:48:29

The speaker asserts that small, nonprofit hospitals are superior to larger, for-profit hospital on the basis of a comparison between a smaller, nonprofit hospital Saluda and
pital Megaville, which is larger and for-profit. The comparison the speaker cites shows that Saluda serves a higher cure rate and more economical treatment to patients than Megaville does. Close scrutiny of these evidences, however, reveals that they lent upport（什么意思？） to the speaker's assertion.

The first problem with the argument is that the speaker equals the time for treatment and cure rate to the quality of treatment. However, the argument doesn't provide any evidence to justify this assumption. For that matter, conversely, it's possible that longer time guarantees a better treatment since the doctors can observe the patients a few days more. Moreover, the speaker assumes that the quality of treatment is proportional with the treatment time and cure rate.（这两句话有什么区别吗？）However it is not substantiated the argument. The speaker ignores the disparity of treatment time and cure rate for different diseases or injuries. Perhaps, since the Saluda is a small hospital, the medical facilities in Saluda in not so advanced that it can only cure those patients who are not seriously injured or ill, which need less time to recover and easily cured. If so, either the case will undermine the speaker's assertion.

Secondly, the speaker assumes that more employees per patient assure a better service. Yet, he fails to provide evidence to support this assumption. The author fails to inform us the profile of professional skills of each employees and how many hours they work a day. For that matter, it is possible that many of the employees in Saluda are part-time workers and poorly trained while employees in Megaville work longer time a day and well-trained. If it is the case, even if the number of employee for per patient in Saluda in larger, it can not indicate that service of Saluda is better.

Thirdly, the speaker also assumes that less complaints from patient indicates better treatment. However, it is unwarranted. Since Megaville is a for-profit hospital, it is naturally that the patients’ expectation for its treatment is higher which leads to more complaints. But it doesn’t necessarily indicate that treatment in Megaville is worse than that of Saluda. Or, perhaps patients in Saluda are not so willing to complain about the service in Saluda hospital just because their clemency on the local hospital while patients in Megaville are often tourists（旅游者，观光客？）.

Finally, the speaker hastily generalizes the conclusion that smaller, nonprofit hospital is better only resting on the comparisons between two local hospitals. For that matter, even assuming that Saluda is better than Megaville, this fact can't necessarily reflect the profile about the overall hospitals. It is possible that Saluda has received much financial support from local government or local charities with which it can buy more advanced medical facilities and employ more professional doctors while other small and nonprofit hospitals didn't received such aid.(时间到)
（这段还没有总结）
In conclusion, the assertion in this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To justify it, the speaker assure me（总觉得us更好）
that profile of the patients involving the treatment time and cure rate in Saluda and Megaville are the same. The speaker also must(must also) inform us the number of hours the employees in these two hospitals work a day and the number or the percentage of the part-time workers(不如说成是非熟练工，part-time范围比较小). He must relevantly provide evidences to assure us that all the patients in Saluda are willing to complain. If the speaker tends to draw conclusion from this comparison, he must convince me that Saluda and Megaville is sufficient to reflect the overall hospitals as a whole.

总结：个人认为在argument的写作中很容易过分重视论据，其实argument就是个小小的三段论，比如说这篇的逻辑线索就是“S医院比M医院好（一些论据）——S医院是小的非盈利医院——小医院比大医院好”。驳逻辑驳的主要不是证据，而是论证本身，Fanilly那段就是做这件事，应当被提到前面作为主要的一段。

血喑
2009.3.5