argument203【1106G】gelivable小组 第3次作业

315556264UID: 2726000

According to this argument, the author concludes that the treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. To justify this conclusion, the author points out that the length of a patient's stay in small, nonprofit hospital is shorter than the large, for-profit hospital, and the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The author also points Saluda hospital has more employees per patient and the complaints about service at Saluda hospital is lesser than the Megaville hospital. Careful examination of this supporting facts, finds it give little persuasive support to the conclusion.

First of all, the average length of patient's stay indicates nothing about the quality and cost of hospital. It is entirely possible that, since the beds for patients is extremely lacking, hospital in Saluda cannot lets their patients stay longer time. Moreover, patients should pay more because per patient is looked after by more doctors and nurses. Hence, lacking evidence about the basic condition of the number of beds and the fee, the author's assumption that hospital in Saluda is more economical and of better quality than hospital in Megaville is untenable.

In addition, the cure rate among patients cannot necessary indicate the quality of treatment since the condition and level of the patients' disease is unknown. Without such information, it is entirely possible that the high cure rate and shorter stay time is due to the small, nonprofit hospital can only treat simple and slight sick. Thus, without more information about the disease two hospitals can treat, I cannot accept the author's conclusion that hospital in Saluda have better quality of treatment.

Further, few complaints about service at local hospital can't prove hospital in Saluda has better quality of treatment. Lacking information about the amount of patients of each hospital, it is possible that the rate of complaint of hospital in Megaville is low, although it has more complaints about service than Saluda's hospital.

Finally, even assuming that the hospital in Saluda is better than hospital in Megaville, it is nevertheless impossible to assess the author's broader contention that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospital without any information about other hospital. Perhaps the condition of hospital in other place is contrary. If the author cannot substantiate the situation he/she cited is sufficiently representative, the author cannot draw any conclusion about the nationwide situation.

In sum, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide information about capacity of treatment of each hospital and the complaints rate of each hospital. The author must also justify the single sample is sufficient to apply to nationwide condition.