argument203 【1106G】gelivable小组 第3次作业

tutuhedouUID: 2971121

A
203

The author drew the conclusion that treatment in smaller’ non-profit hospitals was more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals from a particular comparison. However, the comparison can not directly support the claim and the comparison itself was not logical in many aspects.

To begin with, the author cited the comparison between a small, non-profit hospital in the town of Saluda and a large, for-profit hospital in he nearby city of Megaville which can just be a particular case that cannot be applied to all situations. This case demonstrated the medical situations in the two towns but can not indicate all the other towns, to say nothing of bigger cities. So the author falsely applied a result suitable in part of the situation to the general situation which lies apparent mistake.



Apart from the unconvincing relation between the case cited and the conclusion, the sample of the case varies in too many aspects such as the scale, managing goal and kind of patients. So, to some extent, the two hospitals are out of comparison. The selecting of the samples is unreasonable. When creating a research sample to support certain conclusion, such samples should be possible to make further study. That means to guarantee the result of the research, some variables need to be controlled. Even if the goal of the study is to find two or more factors that affect the research subject, there must be several groups of samples included in the study and then through strict analysis, the result can be meaningful.

However, even though the selecting period is reasonable enough, that is to say, the hospital chosen and the setting of groups are sufficient to go on the study, when carrying out the study progress needs more consideration and the author didn’t collect clear evidence in describe the patient participated in the study. For patients, they may have a view in their mind that when caught with some serious diseases that not all doctors are capable enough to cure, they tend to choose a bigger hospital where medical resources are plentiful and spend more time and money to ensure that they can completely recover. After all, life is more important than anything. As a result, the average cure rate may be lower and there are more costs in money and time in larger hospitals.

To sum up, the conclusion that treatment in smaller’ non-profit hospitals was more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals lacks convincing and reasonable case support. To complete the study, more groups of samples and detailed patients’ conditions should be taken into consideration.

kidsonxianUID: 3001754

逻辑链：数据对比（包括治疗时间等）------ 小的那间医院好 -----
小医院全部都便宜，质量好；

第二段写到点子上了，就是比较空乏；还要补充“便宜”一说，因为原文没有提及价钱问题；
主要错误在第三四段上，一点也不具体，太抽象，还狗屁不通！！！！

就说说第三段吧，你说人家实验没有得到control，人家实验to some extent，不能对比；怎么不能对比了，我对比治疗速率，对比服务人数，对比投诉案例数量，有什么错呢？其实，楼主大概想说的是缺少其他数据，难以令人信服；但是，这样的写法也太抽象了，太不具体了；举例说明，治疗目标；即使医疗时间长短不一，又说明什么？？能说小的就好吗？？从一般思路看，大病去大医院，医疗时间就长了；又可以说，大医院的服务周到，对病人会进行病后恢复、检查；所以会出现大医院倾向长时间医疗；用医疗速度作为衡量医疗质量是不符合逻辑的；只有通过这些描述，才能说原文的对比性出现逻辑错误，而不是像楼主那样只说结果，没有过程；

当然，给你的这个例子是有自身的缺陷的，也是大多数人会犯的错误；接着，你要看看上述这个例子有什么错误；

简单来说，逻辑链：很多原因-----医疗时间不同-----小医院好；；；；；记得要抓住逻辑推导的过程，即--------，而不是去批判数据；注意，红色代表上述例子批判的重点；我们会不自觉的给人家添加原因，就是病人体质啊，病情啊，医疗器械啊等；但是，若果人家说，小医院也有病得很重的人呢？？？如果人家说小医院的设备也不太好呢？？？事实是小医院的医疗时间快，不容辩驳！！！！如果你一味制造这些莫名的原因，说服力实在太小了！！！！

我们要抓住绿线部分，就逻辑链后部的推导；医疗时间短，怎么就能说医院好呢？？？不行，你要批判它！！！时间长，就是时间长；与医疗效果有什么必然关系？？没有，因为长可以医好人，也可以长时间医死人；短的医疗时间也类似；我们看到的应该是医疗结果，不要将结果和快慢联系起来哦~~~指出其不必然关系，没有稳定的逻辑关系！！！！！！！！！！

都是出国的孩子了，接着一段自己揣摩一下吧，加油啊~~~~神马都是浮云啊~~~