argument203【1106G】gelivable小组 第3次作业

lzcc1030UID: 2776987

  The author suggests that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospital is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger hospital. To support his claim, the author cites that patients stay in Saluda hospital for two days while in Megaville for six days on average. He also cites that the cure rate of Saluda is about twice that of the Megaville. The Saluda hospital has more employees per patient and has few complaints. Close scrutiny of the facts the author applies, reveals that none of the facts lend credible support to the suggestion.

First of all, the author unfairly concludes that S is better than M because the length of stay in hospital. It is possible that patients who go to small hospital have not serious diseases, so they don't need to stay for a long time in the hospital while people go to larger hospital because of their serious inguries. Since the author doesn't provide the condition of the patients' injuries, it is hard to accept his suggestion.

Secondly, even though the smaller hospital has twice cure rate than the larger hospital, it doesn't indicate that the former is better than the latter. It is entirely possible that patients who have incurable diseases go to larger hospital such diseases as cancer, AIDS, etc. However, patients who have light diseases that are easily to be cured go to small hospital. Without knowing about the serious degree of the patients, it is hardly to accept the suggestion.

Thirdly, it is hasty to conclude that S is better than M because S has more employees per patient than M. It is quite possible that employees in M is so professional and capable than those in S, so M has no need of so many employees. Since the author doesn't apply information about the employees, the suggestion is untenable.

Fourthly, even if S is better than M, the author is unfairly conclude that smaller hospital is better than larger hospital. It is possible that S has professional doctors and advanced equipments.
To sum up, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the suggestion, the author should provide that patients who go to S and M are in the same degree of injures and all small hospitals are better than larger ones.