Argument 203, 希望大家帮忙改一下，多谢。

ztr931UID: 2680321

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."



In the analysis, the arguer attempts to convince us that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. The major evidence underlying the conclusion is that average length of a patient's stay is 2 days in the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, in contrast with 6 days in the big hospital in Megaville. In addition, he indicates that the Saluda hospital has more employees per patient and few complaints. However, the analysis is vulnerable in 3 aspects.

In the first place, the evidence does not suffice to prove that the average length of a patient's stay and cure rate ensure cheap price and better quality. As we all know, one prefer to go to small hospitals when the disease is not serious. When you catch a cold or get a fever, you will stay in the hospital for a short period of time no matter what the hospital is like. And the cure rate is almost 100 percent. When someone gets serious illness such as cancer, he will go to the big hospital, but the disease is almost impossible to cure. So this does not mean the small , nonprofit hospitals ensure high cure rate.

In the second place, it is unwise to establish a relationship with more employees per patient with better quality. The quality is not only based on the quantity of the doctors but also the quality of them. And the latter factor is more important. It is entirely possible that the doctors in the Megaville hospital are ones who have the ability to handle difficult disease by themselves. We cannot ignore the possibility that the doctors in the Saluda hospital are those who have never gain enough experience.



Last but not least, even if the Saluda's hospital is actually better than that of Megaville, it does not mean all small, non-profit ones are better. It is entirely possible that the government in Saluda pays more attention to the hospital and supports it much. Perhaps the small, non-profit hospitals in other areas are lack of money and cannot hire good doctors or buy expensive equipments.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the analysis lack credibility. To strength the analysis, the arguer is supposed to provide more information about other hospitals, no matter they are small or large, non-profit or for- profit. Besides, he should concentrate on what kinds of diseases are being cured in different hospitals and what are not being cured.