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.”
報(bào)紙的健康板塊上的文章：
有一種普遍的錯(cuò)誤觀念認(rèn)為大學(xué)醫(yī)院比社區(qū)或私人醫(yī)院更好。這個(gè)想法是無(wú)根據(jù)的，我們地區(qū)的大學(xué)醫(yī)院較之私人醫(yī)院，少雇15%的醫(yī)生，對(duì)患者的治愈率要低20%，總體利潤(rùn)要小得多，給一戶員工的待遇比私人醫(yī)院低很多。而且，很多大學(xué)醫(yī)院的醫(yī)生將他們的時(shí)間分為教學(xué)，直到研究和看病幾部分。從此可明顯看出大學(xué)醫(yī)院的服務(wù)質(zhì)量比其他醫(yī)院低。
1， 從一個(gè)醫(yī)院的情況就推廣到整個(gè)太草率
2， 治愈率低可能是因?yàn)榻邮艿幕颊叩玫牟《急容^罕見等原因造成的
3， 工資低，總體利潤(rùn)低，時(shí)間分配給教學(xué)都不能一定說明質(zhì)量差。可能其他福利好，接受的病人少，教學(xué)研究有助于進(jìn)步
1. 首先，醫(yī)生的人數(shù)與質(zhì)量之間沒有必然的因果原因。profit跟質(zhì)量也無(wú)關(guān)系。很可能treating price is significantly lower。
2. 成功率不能說明問題。缺乏其他的證據(jù)，忽略了他因：比如因?yàn)橘|(zhì)量高，所以很多serious illness的，而送往其他醫(yī)院的一般都是common cases.
3. 時(shí)間不能代表問題。因?yàn)槟切┽t(yī)生所做的研究很可能幫助他們進(jìn)行治療。
In this argument the author concludes that university hospitals provide no better care than private or community hospitals. The author bases this conclusion on the following claims about university hospitals: the ones in this region employ 15 percent fewer doctors; they have a 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients; they pay their staffs less money; they make less profit than community hospitals; and they utilize doctors who divide their time between teaching, research and treating patients. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
The most egregious reasoning error in the argument is the author’s use of evidence pertaining to university hospitals in this region as the basis for a generalization about all university hospitals. The underlying assumption operative in this inference is that university hospitals in this region are representative of all university hospitals. No evidence is offered to support this gratuitous assumption.
Secondly, the only relevant reason offered in support of the claim that the quality of care is lower in university hospitals than it is at other hospitals is the fact that university hospitals have a lower success rate in treating patients. But this reason is not sufficient to reach the conclusion in question unless it can be shown that the patients treated in both types of hospitals suffered from similar types of maladies. For example, if university hospitals routinely treat patients suffering from rare diseases whereas other hospitals treat only those who suffer from known diseases and illnesses, the difference in success rates would not be indicative of the quality of care received.
Finally, the author assumes that the number of doctors a hospital employs, its success rate in treating patients, the amount it pays its staff, and the profits it earns are all reliable indicators of the quality of care it delivers. No evidence is offered to support this assumption nor is it obvious that any of these factors is linked to the quality of care delivered to patients. Moreover, the fact that doctors in university hospitals divide their time among many tasks fails to demonstrate that they do a poorer job of treating patients than doctors at other kinds of hospitals. In fact, it is highly likely that they do a better job because they are more knowledgeable than other doctors due to their teaching and research.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to demonstrate that university hospitals in this region are representative of all university hospitals, as well as establishing a causal link between the various factors cited and the quality of care delivered to patients.
“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.”
報(bào)紙的健康板塊上的文章：
有一種普遍的錯(cuò)誤觀念認(rèn)為大學(xué)醫(yī)院比社區(qū)或私人醫(yī)院更好。這個(gè)想法是無(wú)根據(jù)的，我們地區(qū)的大學(xué)醫(yī)院較之私人醫(yī)院，少雇15%的醫(yī)生，對(duì)患者的治愈率要低20%，總體利潤(rùn)要小得多，給一戶員工的待遇比私人醫(yī)院低很多。而且，很多大學(xué)醫(yī)院的醫(yī)生將他們的時(shí)間分為教學(xué)，直到研究和看病幾部分。從此可明顯看出大學(xué)醫(yī)院的服務(wù)質(zhì)量比其他醫(yī)院低。
1， 從一個(gè)醫(yī)院的情況就推廣到整個(gè)太草率
2， 治愈率低可能是因?yàn)榻邮艿幕颊叩玫牟《急容^罕見等原因造成的
3， 工資低，總體利潤(rùn)低，時(shí)間分配給教學(xué)都不能一定說明質(zhì)量差。可能其他福利好，接受的病人少，教學(xué)研究有助于進(jìn)步
1. 首先，醫(yī)生的人數(shù)與質(zhì)量之間沒有必然的因果原因。profit跟質(zhì)量也無(wú)關(guān)系。很可能treating price is significantly lower。
2. 成功率不能說明問題。缺乏其他的證據(jù)，忽略了他因：比如因?yàn)橘|(zhì)量高，所以很多serious illness的，而送往其他醫(yī)院的一般都是common cases.
3. 時(shí)間不能代表問題。因?yàn)槟切┽t(yī)生所做的研究很可能幫助他們進(jìn)行治療。
In this argument the author concludes that university hospitals provide no better care than private or community hospitals. The author bases this conclusion on the following claims about university hospitals: the ones in this region employ 15 percent fewer doctors; they have a 20 percent lower success rate in treating patients; they pay their staffs less money; they make less profit than community hospitals; and they utilize doctors who divide their time between teaching, research and treating patients. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
The most egregious reasoning error in the argument is the author’s use of evidence pertaining to university hospitals in this region as the basis for a generalization about all university hospitals. The underlying assumption operative in this inference is that university hospitals in this region are representative of all university hospitals. No evidence is offered to support this gratuitous assumption.
Secondly, the only relevant reason offered in support of the claim that the quality of care is lower in university hospitals than it is at other hospitals is the fact that university hospitals have a lower success rate in treating patients. But this reason is not sufficient to reach the conclusion in question unless it can be shown that the patients treated in both types of hospitals suffered from similar types of maladies. For example, if university hospitals routinely treat patients suffering from rare diseases whereas other hospitals treat only those who suffer from known diseases and illnesses, the difference in success rates would not be indicative of the quality of care received.
Finally, the author assumes that the number of doctors a hospital employs, its success rate in treating patients, the amount it pays its staff, and the profits it earns are all reliable indicators of the quality of care it delivers. No evidence is offered to support this assumption nor is it obvious that any of these factors is linked to the quality of care delivered to patients. Moreover, the fact that doctors in university hospitals divide their time among many tasks fails to demonstrate that they do a poorer job of treating patients than doctors at other kinds of hospitals. In fact, it is highly likely that they do a better job because they are more knowledgeable than other doctors due to their teaching and research.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to demonstrate that university hospitals in this region are representative of all university hospitals, as well as establishing a causal link between the various factors cited and the quality of care delivered to patients.