Ar203 请多多指教O(∩_∩)O

krisoeUID: 2996451

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: 455
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2011/1/27 18:05:16

The speaker concludes that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals in more economical and of better quality than treatment in large, for-profit hospitals based on the several comparisons. However, close scrutiny reveals that the speaker's conclusion is unjustifiable.

Firstly, the speaker cites the comparison of average patients's stay length, cure rate,and the number of employees per patient
between hospital Saluda and hospital Megaville to indicate that the treatment of the small, non-profit hospital in Saluda is better. However, possibilities are there that patients in Saluda stay shorter in hospital just because the number of beds for patients is limited. And to the contrary, the number of beds in Megaville is sufficient. It is equally possible that, patients who go to the hospital in Saluda only suffer from some illness easy to cure while those who go to the one in Megaville are with much more severe illnesses. In that case, the cure rate is no indication of the quality of treatment. Similarly, the number of employees per patient is not a strong evidence of better quality. Possibilities are there that the proportion of the employees who actually serve the patients is much lower in the Saluda than that in Megaville.
Since the speaker fails to rule out these possibilities, the conclusion is unconvincing.

Secondly, the speaker cites that there are few complaints about service at the local hospital to support his conclusion. However, the speaker fails to provide statistical evidence and detailed process about the complaints. Perhaps the claim the few complaints about service at the local hospital cannot be substantiated. Or perhaps the process of complaint is complex and the complaints cannot be well replied in the local hospital. If these are the circumstance, the local hospital may actually offer a worse quality.

Even if the speaker well support his claim that the hospital in Saluda is of better quality than treatment in the hospital of Megaville. He provides no evidence that it is more economical. Lacking evidence that the average price in the hospital in Saluda is lower, we are far from believing that it is more economical.

Moreover, even if the speaker fairly conclude that the hospital in Saluda is more economical and of better quality than that in Megaville. Whether the hospital in the Saluda is typical of general small, non-profit hospitals, and whether the hospital in the Megaville can represent the general large, for-profit hospitals are open to doubt

To conclude, the conclusion is untenable as the speaker fails to rule out the other possibilities and provides no evidence about the price of the two hospitals. What’s more, to better assess the report, I need to know
whether the hospitals the speaker mentions are typical of their kinds.