【big fish】03月08日Argument203--By sunny球

sunny球UID: 2693880

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 this argument, the author makes a conclusion that treatment in smaller and nonprofit hospitals is more economical and better quality than treatment in large and for-profit hospitals. To justify this claim, the arguer makes a comparison about the patients' average time of recovering, the number of employees per patient as well as complaints between the two hospitals. However, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the average length of a patient's stay is not necessarily a reliable indicator of which hospital is better. Perhaps the patients stay in the smaller hospital just for two days due to flu or some other slight disease that doesn't matter. Common sense informs me that patients who get relatively more serious disease or hurt prefer big hospitals because they believe in the experienced experts from them. For that matter, the patients go there may get more careful treatment and therefore need more time for rest. In short, without considering and ruling out other possible explanations for the average length of a patient's stay, the author cannot convince me that treatment in smaller hospital is better than big one.

Furthermore, even if the patients in smaller hospital can recover faster than those in big one, the author makes two hasty assumptions about the quality and profits of two hospitals. The author fails to inform us the total amount of patients of two hospitals, it is entirely possible that there are much more patients in big hospital than the smaller one, due to the big one has more experts and more advanced treatment and medicine. As a result, more incurable people contribute to the relatively lower cure rate. The cure rate among patients hardly suffices to draw any firm conclusion that the smaller hospital is more effective. Besides, the author unfairly equates the number of employees per patient with the quality of service. The quality of service depends more on the medicine, treatment, apparatus and experts in a hospital instead of the number of employees.

Finally, few complains about service at the local hospital proves nothing about whether it deserves to go to big hospital without taking the character of each hospital into account. It is known to all that the more people, the more complaints. Because the hospital in Megaville is for-profit, people are fastidious and may care more about the treatment. In the opposite, people in smaller one in Saluda are more tolerant due to its nonprofit. Lacking percentage of complaints and price for treatment, it is dubious to assume that the smaller hospital is more economical and better.

As it stands, the conclusion about smaller hospital is better than bigger one is not well reasoned. To better assess the assumption, it would be helpful to provide more information about the number of patients per day as well as the medicine, treatment, apparatus and experts in both hospitals. To strength the claim, the arguer also needs to provide the percentage of complaints to ensure the quality.

jjooyyUID: 2704028

In this argument, the author makes a conclusion that treatment in smaller and nonprofit hospitals is more economical and better quality than treatment in large and for-profit hospitals. To justify this claim, the arguer makes a comparison about the patients' average time of recovering, the number of employees per patient as well as complaints between the two hospitals. However, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the average length of a patient's stay is not necessarily a reliable indicator of which hospital is better. Perhaps the patients stay in the smaller hospital just for two days due to flu or some other slight diseases that doesn't matter. Common sense informs me that patients who get relatively more serious disease or hurt prefer big hospitals because they believe in the experienced experts from them. For that matter, the patients go there may get more careful treatment and therefore need more time for rest. In short, without considering and ruling out other possible explanations for the average length of a patient's stay, the author cannot convince me that treatment in smaller hospital is better than big one.

Furthermore, even if the patients in smaller hospitals can recover faster than those in big one, the author makes two hasty assumptions about the quality and profits of two hospitals. The author fails to inform us the total amount of patients of two hospitals, it is entirely possible that there are much more patients in the big hospital than the smaller one, due to the big one has more experts and more advanced treatment and medicine(medicien和treatment不并列). As a result, more incurable people contribute to the relatively lower cure rate. The cure rate among patients hardly suffices to draw any firm conclusion that the smaller hospital is more effective. Besides, the author unfairly equates the number of employees per patient with the quality of service(这里他没有equate吧，可能他认为是表示了economical呢). The quality of service depends more on the medicine, treatment, apparatus and experts in a hospital instead of the number of employees.

Finally, few complains about service at the local hospital proves nothing about whether it deserves to go to big hospital without taking the character of each hospital into account. It is known to all that the more people, the more complaints. Because the hospital in Megaville is for-profit, people are fastidious and may care more about the treatment. In the opposite, people in smaller one in Saluda are more tolerant due to its nonprofit. Lacking percentage of complaints and price for treatment, it is dubious to assume that the smaller hospital is more economical and better.

As it stands, the conclusion about smaller hospital is better than bigger one is not well reasoned. To better assess the assumption, it would be helpful to provide more information about the number of patients per day as well as the medicine, treatment, apparatus and experts in both hospitals. To strength the claim, the arguer also needs to provide the percentage of complaints to ensure the quality.

错误 建议 精彩
有时 模板不能准确表示逻辑思想，equate这个词 不符合这篇文章吧，还有楼主提建议，是不是要多列点信息，我觉得你要求的信息还是给少了点。。。
用词很不错！注意一下个别语法问题。

sunny球UID: 2693880

2# jjooyy
恩恩 谢谢批改~好认真，呵呵~我也觉得我连接的地方套用模版表达反而有点生硬了，结尾还是有点把握不好，可提的建议很多，时间问题我就随便列了几个，但是感觉还是没有列到重点上。