A203 永不言弃小组 第二十三次作业

cameo0320UID: 2599448

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."
In the argument the author conclude that the smaller, nonprofit hospitals are more economical and of better quality than larger, for-profit hospitals. To support this conclusion, the author make a comparison between S and M from the following aspects: The average length of a patient's stay in S is shorter than M; the cure rate and employee-patient ratio are both higher than M and the number of complaints from patients is lower. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.

For one thing, the author false equates the length of a patient's stay with a quicker recovery and therefore better care. Though the patients just stay two days in the small, non profit hospital, there is no information to conclude that all of them has recovery, even if they has recovery, it is entirely possible that the patients in the small, nonprofit hospital are all merely have a minor illness which is quite easy to cure, while most of patients who have serious problems would like to large hospital. The common sense tells us, the more serious the sick is, the longer time it needs to cure. Thus, the author can not convinced me just provide the average length of the two hospitals.

Secondly, the argument provides no information about what the total number of the two hospitals patients, as a result, the cure rate among patients proves nothing about the quality of care at either hospital. Although the cure rate in S is higher than it in M, it is possible that the total number of patients in S is very small; yet, the number in M is quite large. Without more detail statistics of the total number of patients, the author cannot justifiably rely on cure rates to draw any conclusion about comparative quality of care.

Thirdly, the author's conclusion based on the assumption that if a hospital has more employee, the quality of them must in high level. However, it is not the case. It is possible that, all of the doctors in the small hospital are extremely inexperienced and have little knowledge of medical. Besides, it is equally possible that the large staff at S is the result of organizational inefficiency, and that a smaller staff of more effective, better managed people would provide better care.

Finally, the author also fail to consider other possible alternative of the reason that why the complaints about service at the local hospital are few than that in M. Perhaps, the patients who go to the small, non-profit hospital are all poor, and they spend no money on the cure, so they will not complain the medical quality though it is low. While, the situation in the large, for-profit is different, as the patients have spent more money, they expect receive high-level cure. The author fails to take these factors in to account, thus the conclusion is unconvincing.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To bolster the conclusion, the author must present more facts and statistics about the total number of patients in the tow hospitals, the doctors' quality in the two hospital and also the actual reasons the patients have few complain in S.