【TRANSFORMER】_ARGU203_0806

shevavaUID：2574709

203.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."

shallwetalk1990UID：2507431

题目：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."
字数：503          用时：1:06:37          日期：2009-8-6

It stands reason that points in this argument should be logical, cause of its clear statement. Grounding the comparison of nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda and for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, this report made this conclusion that the treatment will be more economical in small, nonprofit hospitals than larger, for-profit hospital. However, when we have a deep a thought, we will find some logical confusion.

Firstly, considering the reliability of these comparisons in this argument, the author should calculate uncertain factors of it. the argument that the average length of a patient's stay seem weakly, with knowing that the hospital in Saluda is smaller one, people probably think that serious illnesses are not appropriate to send there. This possibility can support the reason why the average length of a patient's stay in the Saluda's hospital is shorter than Megaville's, instead of the guess of treatment effect's difference. With this possibility of the patients in the Saluda hospital is more weakly ill than that in the Megaville hospital, it make sense that the cure rate among patients in the former is higher than the latter. More employees per patient means nothing, the argument didn't provide evidence to prove that every employee per patient severs this patient. As patients in nonprofit hospital, they may pay less money than patients in for-profit. Cause of the lower paid, these patients should understand the hardship of medical personnel. Naturally, they complain less than patients in Megaville's.

Secondly, in spite of a great deal flaws in these comparisons, the dissimilar environments of these two hospitals make these comparisons meaningless. These two hospitals in different cities, however, no information of these hospitals are mentioned in these arguments. Do people's health conditions in these two cities are the same? Do these people of these two place take the same measure are the seam after being ill, stay at home or go to hospital? Which hospital is more popular in these two cities, nonprofits hospital or for-profit hospital? All of these can be answered without research about these two cities' environment.

Finally, the conclusion about two different type of hospitals' treatment is cursory, only based on this uncompleted argument. By comparison of only these two hospitals, the author should not take the conclusion of other hospital. As a report in newspaper which will be seen by citizens, it should not appear this partial assertion to mislead residents. In this argument, the treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospital is more economical and of better quality, however, how to define the meaning of saving-money and better quality is another question. No evidence indicates that the pay in smaller hospital will be less; the information about payment is not mentioned in this argument.

Overall, the author did apply himself/herself into his/her work, while at the same time he was making lots of logical mistakes. He should make more work on comprehensive survey on the comparison of these two hospitals, even more hospitals; the conclusion of him will be more creditable.

第一次一个小时吧！赞一个了~

shevavaUID：2574709

Based on the ungrounded assumptions and dubious evidences, the arguer concluded that smaller, non-profit hospitals provide more economical treatment and of better quality than that of larger and for-profit hospitals. To substantiate the conclusion, the author made a comparison of the two hospitals separately located in Saluda and Megaville from several aspects, say, the average length of a patient's stay, the cure rate, and employees per patient. The argument appears to be convincing at the first glance, however, the further reflection reveals that it omits some necessary concerns that should be addressed.

Firstly, the arguer failed to consider other possible alternatives to the longer average patient stay in Meagaville hospital than that in Saluda hospital. Such alternatives may include the fact that as a small and nonprofit hospital, Sadula hospital cannot afford the large expense cost by service and daily treatment, for the patrons from the government and individuals are limited. It is also possible that the patients of the Sadula hospital live nearby, while those of Megaville come from far away, so that a longer stay is a necessity. In addition,

Secondly, the cure rate is conditioned by many factors. Without giving no consideration of the concrete causes and information, the arguer cannot allege that the cure rate among patients in the Megaville hospital is unfavorable. Perhaps the patients in Megaville are worse-illed and need more complicated and careful treatment. Also in reference to the quantity of the patients, much more patients in M hospital may results in the lower cure rate. Besides, the facilities and the level of the doctor are both elements affecting the cure rate.

Last but not least, there may be numerous other factors that enable the patient in the Saluda hospital to be tended by more employees than that of Megaville hospital. Maybe there are more employees here, and fewer patients. Or it is possible that the employees are hired with lower salary or most of them are unemployed workers, who are employed here to do some basic work. Additionally, without any idea of the feedback of the patients from the Megaville hospital about the service there, none of any conclusion could be drawn into.

To sum up, the argument seems logical presented above, since several aspects concerned by the patients about a hospital are contained. However, to make the argument more convincing, the arguer need to provide more information, such as the overall conditions of the patients, the infrastructures and facilities of the two hospitals and so on, to verify the conclusion.

yesrushUID：2443769

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: 489
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-6 13:47:06

By making a comparison of the nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda with the for-profit hospital in the city of Megavile on the field of the average length of a patient's stay and the number of employees per patient, the author concludes that the nonprofit hospitals like this one in Saluda is more economical and of better quality than larger for--profit hospitals. This information above seems to sound on the surface, however, the author fails to consider other factors to evaluate the situation.

To begin with, the author unfaily equates the average length of a patient's stay to the quality of treatment. It is true that good treatment can cure the patients as quickly as possible, however, the author ignore other factors. It is possible that most of patients coming to the Saluda hospital has minor desease, such as cold, which can be cured easily while the majority of patients comming to the Mefaville hospital are those suffers from serious disease like cancer. If so, the quality of Megaville hospital is better than Saluda hospital because they are able to cure special and serious disease.

In addition, the author unjustly assumes that the more employees per patient, the better quality of hospital. Common sense tells us that many other factors can explain the difference of employees in these two hospitals. Does the most of the employees in the Saluda hospital are those administrator stuff rather than doctors? Even if the doctors per patient in Saluda hospital is more than those of Megaville, is it possible that most of doctors in Magaville process more experience and higher education level while doctors in Saluda are not? Even if the doctors in Saluda has better ability to cure patients, do them pay enough time on each patient? In the face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious for the author draw into the conclusion that Saluda's quality is better than Magaville's.

What's more, even assuming the quality of Saluda hospital is better than Megaville, the author is too hasty to conclude that nonprofit hospitals are more economical and of better quality than for-profit hospitals. It is completely possible that Saluda hospital is not representive of nonprofit hospitals. The author ignore the possibility that the high quality of Saluda due to the funding donation by some merchants, and therefore Saluda hospital is able to hire experienced and professional doctors and bought good medical equipment. Unfortunately, other non-profit hospitals do not enjoy such funding donation.

To sum up, the argument suffers from several fallacies. To make the argument more convincing, the author must provide us more information of patients received treatment in these two hospitals. To better access the argument, the author should present more evidence about the employees and economical condition of these two hospitals. If the author had cited these information given above, I can agree with the author's conclusion that not only Saluda hospital but other nonprofit hospitals have better quality.

shallwetalk1990UID：2507431

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: 489
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-6 13:47:06

By making a comparison of the nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda with the for-profit hospital in the city of Megavile on the field of the average length of a patient's stay and the number of employees per patient, the author concludes that the nonprofit hospitals like this one in Saluda is more economical and of better quality than larger for--profit hospitals. This information above seems to sound on the surface, however, the author fails to consider other factors to evaluate the situation.

To begin with, the author unfaily equates the average length of a patient's stay to the quality of treatment. It is true that good treatment can cure the patients as quickly as possible,（这一点提的很好 我就没说 可能会让判卷人有疑惑） however, the author ignore other factors. It is possible that most of patients coming to the Saluda hospital has minor desease, such as cold, which can be cured easily while the majority of patients comming to the Mefaville hospital are those suffers from serious disease like cancer. If so, the quality of Megaville hospital is better than Saluda hospital because they are able to cure special and serious disease.

In addition, the author unjustly assumes that the more employees per patient, the better quality of hospital. Common sense tells us that many other factors can explain the difference of employees in these two hospitals. Does the most of the employees in the Saluda hospital are those administrator stuff rather than doctors? Even if the doctors per patient in Saluda hospital is more than those of Megaville, is it possible that most of doctors in Magaville process more experience and higher education level while doctors in Saluda are not? Even if the doctors in Saluda has better ability to cure patients, do them pay enough time on each patient? In the face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious for the author draw into the conclusion that Saluda's quality is better than Magaville's.

What's more, even assuming the quality of Saluda hospital is better than Megaville, the author is too hasty to conclude that nonprofit hospitals are more economical and of better quality than for-profit hospitals. It is completely possible that Saluda hospital is not representive of nonprofit hospitals. The author ignore the possibility that the high quality of Saluda due to the funding donation by some merchants, and therefore Saluda hospital is able to hire experienced and professional doctors and bought good medical equipment. Unfortunately, other non-profit hospitals do not enjoy such funding donation.

To sum up, the argument suffers from several fallacies. To make the argument more convincing, the author must provide us more information of patients received treatment in these two hospitals. To better access the argument, the author should present more evidence about the employees and economical condition of these two hospitals. If the author had cited these information given above, I can agree with the author's conclusion that not only Saluda hospital but other nonprofit hospitals have better quality.

看了很多你的文章 逻辑很清晰 然我不知道说写什么好
我真的很认真的看你的文章了 但实在找不出让我有值得批判的地方 句子使用的流畅 而且文章条理清楚 语法方面我比较菜 所以也没看太出来
最后点题的时候再赞一下这个调查者吧 人家也挺辛苦的 呵呵~~~

4# yesrush