【1010G8月AW小组】【我们的小组】ARGUMENT203 by【❀雨】

verydarkUID: 2765585

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: 575
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/8/1 16:25:15

In this arguments, the arguer concludes that the treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than in larger, for-profit hospitals, through a comparison of two hospitals in Saluda and Megaville. The factors cited by the author include the average length of patient stay, the cure rate, the employee-patient ratio, and the number of complaints. Although this argument seems convincing at the first sight of such comparison, close scrutiny reveals that it is still flawed in several aspects.

To begin with, the comparison between the average lengths of patient's stay lends little support to the arguer's conclusion. How long a patient would stay in the hospital depends on many factors, such as the severity of illness, the physical condition of the patient, the kind of disease, and so on. However, the author fails to give any information discussed above. Also, granted the absence of such key information for the evaluation of conclusion, the difference of the cure rate among two hospitals does make nothing difference. It's quite possible that the patients who come to Saluda hospital have a comparatively less severe illness than ones who turn to Megaville hospital. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot convince me with his conclusion yet.

In addition, the author unfairly equates a higher employee-patient ratio to a better service quality. However, common sense informs me that it is not always the case. A higher rate of employees per patient may only to reveal that the management in Megaville hospital is inefficiency. It's quite possible that fewer employees in Megaville have a service of better effectiveness and quality, on the contrary. What's more, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between few complaints and satisfaction of patients in Saluda hospital. Perhaps Megaville hospital implemented a more open policy to encourage complaints, or perhaps patients in Saluda are not intended to complain even if they are not satisfied by the service. In short, it is unfair to compare the number of complaints while ignore other factors within the two hospitals.

Thirdly, the author fails to give any evidence to support the conclusion that the treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical. It is entirely possible that the average price for treatment in Saluda is even higher than in Megaville, since there is heated competition among for-profit hospitals nowadays. Without such information concerning the actual cost charged by two hospitals, I cannot take the arguer's conclusion seriously.

In final analysis, even if Saluda hospital is better than Megaville hospital roundly, are these two hospitals representative to the situation of all nonprofit and for-profit hospitals around the country? It is entirely possible that the situation of Saluda and Megaville is just an exception of the entire situation of all hospitals, and for-profit hospitals are still preponderant towards nonprofit in a large scope.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more acceptable, the arguer must provide evidence that the average severity of patients in two hospitals are similar, and the high ratio of employees to patients actually bring better service to patients in Saluda hospital. The arguer should also substantiate that the fewer complaints does reveals a better service in Saluda. To better assess the conclusion, I would still need information about the charge of two hospitals. Therefore, with these evidence and information discussed above given, one can really make a wise decision about what kind of hospital should choose.