argument203 by [728西安]小红莓

小红莓UID: 2641349

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: 438
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-7-13 21:33:47

In this argument, the author concludes that treatment in small, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. To support his conclusion, the author points out that the average length of a patient's stay in nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda is two days while for-profit hospital in Megaville is six days. The author also claims that the cure rate in the Saluda is twice of the Megaville and the Saluda has higher employee-patient rates and few complaints. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.

To begin with, the average length of a patient's stay is not necessary to support any convincing conclusion. Perhaps the Saluda hospital do not have enough equipments and beds for too many patients for the reason that it is a mall nonprofit one which have not enough foundation, so patients are not allowed to stay long after treatment. The author provides no evidence that the patients who leave the hospital are all cured ones. Perhaps the small, nonprofit hospitals are much cheaper than large, for-profit ones and therefore they are favored by the poor who have not enough money to stay in the hospital for too long.

Next, as we do not know the state of illness and the condition of patients' health, there are many possibilities that could be the reason for the fact that the cure rate in the Saluda is twice of the Megaville. It is likely that the people who go to the small, nonprofit hospitals are not ill seriously and therefore easy to be cured.

Future more, the arguer's claim that the Saluda has higher employee-patient rates could not make any sense. Perhaps the employee's quality of work is lower and therefore more people were needed to care about one patient.

Additionally, based on the fact that few complaints about service are there at local hospital, the author also could not make a logical conclusion, because we do not know the complaint system of two hospitals. Perhaps the Saluda hospital give little rights or even do not give chance for patients to complaint while the Megaville hospital encourage them to complain about the services.

Even if the nonprofit, small hospital in Saluda is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospital in Megaville, the author fails to convince me that all the nonprofit, small hospitals are better than larger, for-profit hospitals. Perhaps the case in the argument is a special one and could not be representative in the whole society.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands, to strengthen it the author should give more clear evidence.

tidejoyUID: 2527165

路过~帮顶~