[求助] 各位大大帮弱牛看看 argument

43. The following appeared in an article in the health section of a newspaper.

“There is a common misconception that university hospitals are better than community or private hospitals. This notion is unfounded, however: the university hospitals in our region employ 15 percent fewer doctors, have a 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients, make far less overall profit, and pay their medical staff considerably less than do private hospitals. Furthermore, many doctors at university hospitals typically divide their time among teaching, conducting research, and treating patients. From this it seems clear that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals.”           

The conclusion endorsed in this argument is that the notion that the university hospitals are better than community or private hospitals is problematic and the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals. Several reasons are offered in support of this argument. First of all, the author points out that the university hospitals fail to employ more doctors, have lower success to treat patients, make better profit, and give their staff higher pay. In addition, the author reasons that at university hospitals many doctors are busy teaching, conducting research, and treating patients. However, the conclusion is based on some dubious assumption and this reasoning is biased due to the inadequacy and partiality in the nature of evidence provided to justify the conclusion. A careful examination would review how groundless this conclusion is.

Firstly, the author's conclusion rests on the assumption that the condition that these doctors separate their time to deal with different things other than treat patients is a cause of lower success rate in treating patients just because the former coincided with the latter. However, the merely positional correlation does not indicate the causal relationship. For example, perhaps a doctors at university hospitals conducted researches to deal with some certain heart diseases because many patients contracting such diseases need their help. However, private or community hospitals are not able to deal with these diseases because they have no medical resources as good as those of university hospitals. Unless the author can show that the lower success rate for treating patients happened because of doctor's separation of time into different things other than treating patients, it would be groundless to attribute lower success rate in treating patients to the condition that these doctors separate their time to deal with different things other than treating patients.     

Secondly, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion. The figures of 15 percent fewer doctors and 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients do not indicate that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals. It is possible that these hospitals need excellent doctors to take care of patients so they always keep high level of requirement to find doctors. On other hand, perhaps these doctors often deal with heavy disease such as brain cancer and heart disease, but it is very difficult for these doctors to help patients leave away these diseases, so the success rate to treat patient is always low. Without more detailed analysis of the real source of the figures of 15 percent fewer doctors and 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients, it is difficult to conclude that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals.  

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it is imprudent for the author to claim that the notion that the university hospitals are better than community or private hospitals is problematic and the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals. To solidify the conclusion, the author would have to show that the lower success rate for treating patients happened because of doctor's separation of time into different things other than treating patients. In addition, the author should provide concrete evidence to demonstrate that the figures of 15 percent fewer doctors and 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients certainly indicate that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals. Only with more convincing evidence could the argument become more than just an emotional appeal.                                                                                        小弟...弱牛一個,一战時才4.0,根基不好,請大牛幫我看看到底問題出在哪兒...感恩阿!

The conclusion endorsed in this argument is that the notion that the university hospitals are better than community or private hospitals is problematic and the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals. Several reasons are offered in support of this argument. First of all, the author points out that the university hospitals fail to employ more doctors, have lower success to treat patients, make better profit, and give their staff higher pay. In addition, the author reasons that at university hospitals many doctors are busy teaching, conducting research, and treating patients. However, the conclusion is based on some dubious assumption and this reasoning is biased due to the inadequacy and partiality in the nature of evidence provided to justify the conclusion. A careful examination would review how groundless this conclusion is.

Firstly, the author's conclusion rests on the assumption that the condition that these doctors separate their time to deal with different things other than treat patients is a cause of lower success rate in treating patients just because the former coincided with the latter. However, the merely positional correlation does not indicate the causal relationship. For example, perhaps a doctors at university hospitals conducted researches to deal with some certain heart diseases because many patients contracting such diseases need their help. However, private or community hospitals are not able to deal with these diseases because they have no medical resources as good as those of university hospitals. Unless the author can show that the lower success rate for treating patients happened because of doctor's separation of time into different things other than treating patients, it would be groundless to attribute lower success rate in treating patients to the condition that these doctors separate their time to deal with different things other than treating patients.     

Secondly, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion. The figures of 15 percent fewer doctors and 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients do not indicate that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals. It is possible that these hospitals need excellent doctors to take care of patients so they always keep high level of requirement to find doctors. On other hand, perhaps these doctors often deal with heavy disease such as brain cancer and heart disease, but it is very difficult for these doctors to help patients leave away these diseases, so the success rate to treat patient is always low. Without more detailed analysis of the real source of the figures of 15 percent fewer doctors and 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients, it is difficult to conclude that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals.  

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it is imprudent for the author to claim that the notion that the university hospitals are better than community or private hospitals is problematic and the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals. To solidify the conclusion, the author would have to show that the lower success rate for treating patients happened because of doctor's separation of time into different things other than treating patients. In addition, the author should provide concrete evidence to demonstrate that the figures of 15 percent fewer doctors and 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients certainly indicate that the quality of care at university hospitals is lower than that at other kinds of hospitals. Only with more convincing evidence could the argument become more than just an emotional appeal.                                                                                        小弟...弱牛一個,一战時才4.0,根基不好,請大牛幫我看看到底問題出在哪兒...感恩阿!

我的感觉是你的三个分论点似乎都不是很鲜明

换句话说，你可以用“七宗罪”让自己的论证更加细分