[Big Fish]Argument203 by-bobbiezz

BobbieZZUID: 2756583

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."
==========================================================================

The statement compare between two hospitals and the arguer states that the smaller hospital is better than the bigger one. To support his/her opinion, the speaker gives such surveys that compare between the two one's data: the day patient used to treatment, the cure rate and also including the employees that offer per patient. All above that information point out the smaller one is more economical and has better treatment than others. However, the author asserts his/her statement without deep logical thought and no sufficient evidences that can not make his/her statement stands as follow respects.

First of all, the survey of the average days of a patient's stay in hospital can not be correct to prove that which hospital is better than other, because patients' situation were not similar that can not be compared together. Some of them may be just have a cold or cough that just stay in there for several hours to injection. Some of them may be hurt their bones in traffic accident so that they have to live in there for a number of months. Although the days of Saluda paid for more than Megaville hospital, the average data of patients' stay is a unfairly data to be a evidence to support author's statement.

Furthermore, even though the smaller cure patients faster than the bigger one, it is unfairly assumes that the nonprofit hospital's technical is higher than the for-profit ones just based on the cure rate proportion among two hospitals is not enough. Perhaps the total number patients in the smaller one is just one or two, however, the bigger one has to accept large amount of patients every about thousands. So the rate even could not be compared with together. If the speaker wishes to proof his/her opinion, he/she should be provided the based number of both two hospital's patients that they accept everyday.

Moreover, only based on the few complaints from patients it could not be said that the bigger one has worse reputation than the smaller hospital. And even could not be subsidize that the quality of nonprofit one is better. The quality of treatment has not be title trough all over the argument, how could be assert that the quality of the smaller is better. To be more effective treatment, the equipment of the medicine is one of the most important supplies, and hospital need money to buy this equipment, how could the non-profit one purchase this? In addition, people could not be convinced that the non-profit hospital has few compliant it would have higher quality to treatment. The lower compliant may due to their hospital has no notebook to record people's suggestions and complaints. So if the speaker wishes to make his/her statement stand, he should provide more details about both two hospitals.

In sum, the statement can not stand due to the author based on several inaccurate survey and compare with the two hospital according to confused data, so the author should not only pay more details and evidences between the nonprofit one and other one, but also thought deeply and logically as far as he/her could.

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

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."
==========================================================================

The statement compare(s) between(可以去掉between) two hospitals and the arguer states that the smaller hospital is better than the bigger one. To support his/her opinion, the speaker gives such surveys that compare between（一样） the two one's data: the day patient used to treatment, the cure rate and also including the employees that offer per patient. All above that information point out the smaller one is more economical and has better treatment than others. However, the author asserts his/her statement without deep logical thought and no sufficient evidences that can not make his/her statement stands as follow respects.

First of all, the survey of the average days of a patient's stay in hospital can not be correct to prove that which hospital is better than other, because patients' situation were not similar that can not be compared together. Some of them may be just have a cold or cough that just stay in there for several hours to injection. Some of them may be hurt their bones in traffic accident so that they have to live in there for a number of months. Although the days of Saluda paid for more than Megaville hospital, the average data of patients' stay is a unfairly data to be a evidence to support author's statement. （要是更明确的去假设一下伤风感冒小病去saluda, 手术住院大病去Megaville, 因此后者病人要耽搁的时间长更好）

Furthermore, even though the smaller cure patients faster than the bigger one, it is unfairly assumes that the nonprofit hospital's technical is higher than the for-profit ones just based on the cure rate proportion among two hospitals is not enough. Perhaps the total number patients in the smaller one is just one or two, however, the bigger one has to accept large amount of patients every about thousands. So the rate even could not be compared with together. If the speaker wishes to proof his/her opinion, he/she should be provided the based number of both two hospital's（hospitals’） patients that they accept everyday.

Moreover, only based on the few complaints from patients it could not be said that the bigger one has worse reputation than the smaller hospital. And even could not be subsidize that the quality of nonprofit one is better. The quality of treatment has not be title trough all over the argument, how could be assert that the quality of the smaller is better. To be more effective treatment, the equipment of the medicine is one of the most important supplies, and hospital need money to buy this equipment, how could the non-profit one purchase this? In addition, people could not be convinced that the non-profit hospital has few compliant it would have higher quality to treatment. The lower compliant may due to their hospital has no notebook to record people's suggestions and complaints.(这一点太妙了) So if the speaker wishes to make his/her statement stand, he should provide more details about both two hospitals.

In sum, the statement can not stand due to the author based on several inaccurate survey and compare with the two hospital（s） according to confused data, so the author should not only pay more details and evidences between the nonprofit one and （the）other one, but also thought deeply and logically as far as he/her could.
嗯，感觉你想到的有些点真是很独特，学习了
还是一些小语法毛病，其实大家都一样
加油啊

留学小歪UID: 2767768

好长~