Argument203 【challenge yourself小组】第二次作业

sabrinabaobaoUID：2515866

Argument203 【challenge yourself小组】第二次作业 by sabrinabaobao

1，错误比较，对病人在医院逗留时间长短的比较不能推断医院质量的好坏
2，对治愈比率的比较缺条件，论断不公平
3，因果错误，原因推不出结果
4，数据模糊，没有提供总数和比例，以及两个医院的投诉机制是否相同

In this argument, the author attempts to convince that the treatment in smaller non-profit hospitals is more economic and of better quality than the treatment in the larger for-profitable hospitals, because of the fewer stay days, higher cure rate, more employees per patient and fewer complaints in the non-profitable hospital in the small town-Saluda, compared to the for-profit one. It seems reasonable at the first thought; unfortunately the argument suffers from the confusing comparison and fails to establish a causal relationship.

First of all, the comparison between two hospitals in the average length of patients’ stay and the cure rate is not necessarily due to the conclusion that the smaller non-profitable hospital is better than the larger hospital in quality. Firstly, the author fails to offer evidence that the patients in the small hospital stay in the hospital until being well-healed, perhaps the patients may leave for some other reasons. For example, the patients get indisposition and go to doctors’ only for some medicine, or the hospital does not ask the patients to stay because of lacking spaces, even when they have not been healed yet. So the fewer staying time can not substantiate the better quality compared to the larger one.

Secondly, though the cure rate in the large and for-profit hospital is lower than the small one, it cannot prove a worse quality without indicating which kings of diseases are treated in the two hospitals. If most of the patients infected with difficult diseases choose the hospital in the big city rather than the small one in a town, it is unfair to compare the cure rate in two hospitals and assert the former is better than latter. In fact, people tend to choose large hospital in big city for it is more reliable, moreover there are more urban people suffering from the diseases than the people living in village. Thus, the mere fact that the small hospital has a fewer patients’ stay time and twice cure rate than the large hospital lends scant support to the conclusion.

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.

Furthermore , the mere fact that the Saluda hospital receives fewer patients’ complaints than the Megaville hospital does has nothing to do with the service quality. Admittedly the number of complaints is small while the proportion may be high. Perhaps the for-profit hospital welcomes the feedback and suggestions from the patients, but the small one does not, for it is non-profit.

To sum up, the argument is unable to persuade its standpoint. The author need more evidence to prove the patients in the Saluda hospital are released earlier and better healed, and need to clarify the cure rate in the similar problems and the accurate percentage of patients unsatisfied with the service rather than an unfair comparison.

[ 本帖最后由 sabrinabaobao 于 2008-7-27 12:16 编辑 ]

springelfUID：2458536

Argument203 【challenge yourself小组】第二次作业 by sabrinabaobao
In this argument, the author attempts to convince that the treatment in smaller non-profit hospitals is more economic(貌似不能用这个呢，这个是经济的，经济学的，应该用economical) and of better quality than the treatment in the larger for-profitable hospitals, because of the fewer stay days, higher cure rate, more employees per patient and fewer complaints in the non-profitable hospital in the small town-Saluda, compared to the for-profit one. It seems reasonable at the first thought; unfortunately the argument suffers from the confusing comparison and fails to establish a causal relationship.
(Beautiful beginning, good ,good )

First of all, the comparison between two hospitals in the average length of patients’ stay and the cure rate is not necessarily(应该用形容词necessary) due to the conclusion that the smaller non-profitable hospital is better than the larger hospital in quality. (这里你说基于这个结论这个比较是没有必要的，我觉得有点疑问？而且你后面说的这个firstly也没有说明为什么没有必要。你可不可以用中文告诉我你想说的是什么？)Firstly, the author fails to offer evidence that the patients in the small hospital stay in the hospital until being well-healed, perhaps the patients may leave for some other reasons. For example, the patients get indisposition and go to doctors’ only for some medicine, or the hospital does not ask the patients to stay because of lacking spaces, even when they have not been healed yet. (这个例子我觉得有点问题，题目说的是the average length of a patient's stay，这个的话按照我的理解应该是住院治疗的天数。如果象你说的，只是在门诊开个药什么的，应该不算在内的。)So the fewer staying time can not substantiate the better quality compared to the larger one.
(这段结构很好，但是说服力还值得推敲一下)

Secondly, though the cure rate in the large and(这个，the cure rate in the large and 是不是想说这个治愈率在很大程度上……，这么用对不对啊？我不确定~) for-profit hospital is lower than the small one, it cannot prove a worse quality without indicating which kings of diseases are treated in the two hospitals. If most of the patients infected with difficult diseases choose the hospital in the big city rather than the small one in a town, it is unfair to compare the cure rate in two hospitals and assert the former is better than latter. In fact, people tend to choose large hospital in big city for it is more reliable, moreover there are more urban people suffering from the diseases than the people living in village.( moreover there are more urban people suffering from the diseases than the people living in village.这句说了好像没有意义啊，有点突兀了，而且没有说服了。其实前面的逻辑已经很好了，加这个反而有点添足了。) Thus, the mere fact that the small hospital has a fewer patients’ stay time and twice cure rate than the large hospital lends scant support to the conclusion.

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.

Furthermore, the mere fact that the Saluda hospital receives fewer patients’ complaints than the Megaville hospital does has nothing to do with the service quality. Admittedly the number of complaints is small (the number is small, 这么说可以吗？我不知道~)while the proportion may be high. Perhaps the for-profit hospital welcomes the feedback and suggestions from the patients, but the small one does not, for it is non-profit. (and what is the conclusion?)

To sum up, the argument is unable to persuade its standpoint. The author need more evidence to prove the patients in the Saluda hospital are released earlier and better healed, and need to clarify the cure rate in the similar problems and the accurate percentage of patients unsatisfied with the service rather than an unfair comparison.
(嗯，sabirna的argument已经写的很好了。无论是在逻辑，段落，还是用此方面都很好了。这篇文章除了firstly的那一段有点问题，其他都很好。嗯~~你以后在遇到那种人名、地名、公司名以大写字母开头的时候可以在第一次写的时候在旁边用括号写个简称，以后可以直接用，这样比较省时间。然后，可以开始计时了。：) good article！！)

linyunfUID：2405027

In this argument, the author attempts to convince that the treatment in smaller non-profit hospitals is more economic and of better quality than the treatment in the larger for-profitable hospitals, because of the fewer stay days, higher cure rate, more employees per patient and fewer complaints in the non-profitable hospital in the small town-Saluda, compared to the for-profit one. It seems reasonable at the first thought; unfortunately the argument suffers from the confusing comparison and fails to establish a causal relationship.

First of all, the comparison between two hospitals in the average length of patients’ stay and the cure rate is not necessarily due to the conclusion that the smaller non-profitable hospital is better than the larger hospital in quality. Firstly, the author fails to offer evidence that the patients in the small hospital stay in the hospital until being well-healed, perhaps the patients may leave for some other reasons. For example, the patients get indisposition and go to doctors’ only for some medicine, or the hospital does not ask the patients to stay because of lacking spaces, even when they have not been healed yet. So the fewer staying time can not substantiate the better quality compared to the larger one.

Secondly, though the cure rate in the large and for-profit hospital is lower than the small one, it cannot prove a worse quality without indicating which kings( what kinds笔误) of diseases are treated in the two hospitals. If most of the patients infected with difficult diseases choose the hospital in the big city rather than the small one in a town, it is unfair to compare the cure rate in two hospitals and assert the former is better than latter(指代不明). In fact, people tend to choose large hospital in big city for it is more reliable, moreover there are more urban people suffering from the diseases than the people living in village（这是事实么？）. Thus, the mere fact that the small hospital has a fewer patients’ stay time and twice cure rate than the large hospital lends scant support to the conclusion.

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.Furthermore , the mere fact that the Saluda hospital receives fewer patients’ complaints than the Megaville hospital does has nothing to do with the service quality. Admittedly（用Possibly好些吧?） the number of complaints is small while the proportion may be high. Perhaps the for-profit hospital welcomes the feedback and suggestions from the patients, but the small one does not, for it is non-profit.

To sum up, the argument is unable to persuade its standpoint（有这个用法么？persuade the standpoint）. The author need（needs） more evidence to prove the patients in the Saluda hospital are released earlier and better healed, and need to clarify the cure rate in the similar problems and the accurate percentage of patients unsatisfied with the service rather than an unfair comparison.
不错不错
水平有限，可能改错。

[ 本帖最后由 linyunf 于 2008-7-27 23:50 编辑 ]

sabrinabaobaoUID：2515866

First of all, the comparison between two hospitals in the average length of patients’ stay and the cure rate is not necessarily(应该用形容词necessary) due to the conclusion that the smaller non-profitable hospital is better than the larger hospital in quality. (这里你说基于这个结论这个比较是没有必要的，我觉得有点疑问？而且你后面说的这个firstly也没有说明为什么没有必要。你可不可以用中文告诉我你想说的是什么？)  
我是想表达比较不是结论的必要条件，退不出结论， 可能有点词不达意了，还请楼主赐教:loveliness: 而且我对住院还是在医院这个问题上的理解的确有偏差，应该从两个医院的效率不同来论证
cure rate in the large and(这个，the cure rate in the large and 是不是想说这个治愈率在很大程度上……，这么用对不对啊？我不确定~) for-profit hospital ， 呵呵，large 是和nonprofit 一起修饰hospital 的，我 不该加and

number 可以用small 修饰，我在其它文章中见过:)  非常感谢楼主帮我修改，学到很多， 辛苦了

sabrinabaobaoUID：2515866

没有没有，我的水平也很差，有好多语法书写错误都被你指出来了，非常感谢，不然我是意识不到的

springelfUID：2458536

这个不是必要条件好像有点不大对，我觉得，我也说不出来，就感觉有点别扭。

It is unfair to infer based on the comparison between cure rate and the length of days. The inference relies on the poor assumption that the facts above are the only standard, and without consideration of other possible.

大概是这样吧，我自己也写不好，你自己再看看哈:loveliness:

linyunfUID：2405027

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?