argument203 【challenge yourself小组】第二次作业 by springelf

springelfUID：2458536

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: 478          TIME: 00:55:06          DATE: 2008-7-26 11:38:44

In this argument, the speaker claims that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospital. In order to support his assertion, the speaker cites evidence about the comparison to the number of day of treatment, the cure rate, employees and complaints between the Hospital Saluda (S) and the Hospital Megabille (M). Close scrutiny of these comparisons, however, little of them can support his declaration.

On the first glance, the fact that the length of day patient stay in S Hospital is fewer than ones in Hospital M cannot bolster the assertion that Hospital S has better treatment quality and more economical. First, the fact that the S Hospital is a smaller hospital and located in a town must be noticed, and perhaps patients in Hospital S suffer less serious diseases that those in Hospital M, and they will stay fewer days in hospital. In addition, the speaker do not provide the expenditure in both hospital in detail, it is entirely possible that patient staying two days spend twice than those staying six days. If it is the case, the fact that the average length of a patient’s staying in Hospital S is shorter cannot demonstrate the assertion that smaller hospitals are better quality and more economical.

Secondly, nor the fact that the cure rate among patients in S hospital is about twice that of the M hospital accomplished bolster the declaration, for the patients' condition is a more important factor. Perhaps, the patients in S hospital suffer only cough, headache or stomach rather that those in M hospital suffering malignant tumor. Or perhaps, the most patients in M hospital are those who cannot be treatment in S hospital. Considering the possible above, the fact that the cure rate in S hospital is higher cannot persuaded me.

And finally, that the S hospital has more employees per patient is little indication that the patients can get better treatment quality. First, the need of these employees must be considered. Even if all these employees are needed, we must consider that whether the patient must pay more due to these employees. Likewise, the speaker refer to the fact that the S hospital has few complaints about service, yet the service quality is not only one standard to evaluate the whole quality. If the S hospital only has good service quality rather than treatment quality, the whole quality cannot be regarded as good. In short, the two facts cites by speaker cannot convince me.

sabrinabaobaoUID：2515866

In this argument, the speaker claims that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospital. In order to support his assertion, the speaker cites evidence about the comparison to the number of day of treatment, the cure rate, employees and complaints between the Hospital Saluda (S) and the Hospital Megabille (M). Close scrutiny of these comparisons, however, little of them can support his declaration.（开头指出作者的论据不能有效支持观点，语言准确简练。Ps:与地名除第一次出现意外，可以用缩写，呵呵学到一招）

On the first glance, the fact that the length of day patient stay in S Hospital is fewer than ones in Hospital M cannot bolster the assertion that Hospital S has better treatment quality and more economical. First, the fact that the S Hospital is a smaller hospital and located in a town must be noticed, and perhaps patients in Hospital S suffer less serious diseases that those in Hospital M, and they will stay fewer days in hospital. In addition, the speaker do not provide the expenditure in both hospital in detail, it is entirely possible that patient staying two days spend twice than those staying six days. If it is the case（这个。。。可以这样用吗？意思是不是用case指代前面提到的情况啊）, the fact that the average length of a patient’s staying in Hospital S is shorter cannot demonstrate the assertion that smaller hospitals are better quality and more economical. （指明住院长短不能证明S医院治疗质量更好，费用更低 ，提出其它的可能性。）

Secondly, nor the fact that the cure rate among patients in S hospital is about twice that of the M hospital accomplished bolster the declaration, for the patients' condition is a more important factor. Perhaps, the patients in S hospital suffer only cough, headache or stomach rather that those in M hospital suffering malignant tumor. Or perhaps, the most patients in M hospital are those who cannot be treatment in S hospital. Considering the possible above, the fact that the cure rate in S hospital is higher cannot persuaded （时态错误persuade）me.（是在攻击治愈率高低与结论之间的因果关系，我觉得如果用一些关门攻击因果关系的标志词可能会显得逻辑更严谨）

And finally, that the S hospital has more employees per patient is little indication that the patients can get better treatment quality. First, the need of these employees must be considered. Even if all these employees are needed, we must consider that whether the patient must pay more due to these employees. Likewise, the speaker refer to the fact that the S hospital has few complaints about service, yet the service quality is not only one standard to evaluate the whole quality. If the S hospital only has good service quality rather than treatment quality, the whole quality cannot be regarded as good. In short, the two facts cites by speaker cannot convince me.（argu 可以不写独立的结尾段吗？请教LZ）

总体感觉逻辑清晰，语言简练而且用词多样，我觉得还可以在每段指出自己攻击的错误是什么，比如比较上或者因果关系上的。 可能有些我不太熟的用法，指出的错误可能不对，呵呵
:)

springelfUID：2458536

1. If it is the case（这个。。。可以这样用吗？意思是不是用case指代前面提到的情况啊）嗯，这个我是看北美上这么用的，我的理解是这句话的意思是，如果上面我的假设属实的话~~~:)

2（是在攻击治愈率高低与结论之间的因果关系，我觉得如果用一些关门攻击因果关系的标志词可能会显得逻辑更严谨）嗯，是的，其实我觉得这两段我写的不好，应该象你一样把治愈率和住院天数一起写比较好。而且我也觉得你用的那些标志词比我的好多了，学习了~~~:loveliness:

3. （argu 可以不写独立的结尾段吗？请教LZ）不是，当然不是，而且是完全不能。我是~~~~~贴少了一段~~~~在下面~~~哎~~~~:vomit:
In conclusion, the argument is not well bolstered only according to the article above. To convince me, the speaker must provide more information about the average expenditure that a patient who suffered the same disease spend in both hospital, the cure rate of the same disease, and the whole quality of both hospital including treatment, service, instrument and so on.  

4我觉得还可以在每段指出自己攻击的错误是什么，比如比较上或者因果关系上的。嗯，是的，这个要象你学习。我自己总体感觉这篇文章你写的比我的好。更清晰，更严谨。嗯，学习中……:loveliness:

再次感谢sabirna的认真批改！:handshake