校病院與私立病院(考古)
>>> 本月原始
【1】
這是來自康健模塊的一片文章，有如許一個誤會：university hospital 比private hospital 大概其他範例的病院好。但是並無(開端說university hospital 的欠好)：university hospital的大夫不到xx%，診斷的勝利率(似乎是)低於xx%，付給大夫的錢也少(背面忘了);university hospital的大夫不但要看病，還要做科研，幹其余甚麽工作，看待病人的時光就沒若幹了。以是，university hospital的質量比private hospital 大概其他範例的病院差。
【2】
是jj裏的關於community hospital 和 university hospital的比擬。
【3】
考了university hospitals誰人
>>> 考古原題
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.”
報紙的康健板塊上的文章：
有一種廣泛的毛病看法以為大學病院比社區或私家病院更好。這個設法主意是無依據的，咱們地域的大學病院較之私家病院，少雇15%的大夫，對患者的治愈率要低20%，整體利潤要小很多，給一戶員工的報酬比私家病院低許多。並且，許多大學病院的大夫將他們的時光分為教授教養，直到研討和看病幾部門。今後可顯著看出大學病院的辦事質量比其他病院低。
>>>參考思緒
1.false analogy：
將大學病院與全部其他病院比擬較。大學病院與其他病院有很多多少分歧點，比方在範圍上，大夫質量上，所回收病人的病情上等;
2.樣本題目，以偏概全：
僅僅一個region的例子就推出全部的大學病院都欠好，這類generalization是絕對不嚴謹的;It is entirely possible that 這個處所的只是一個特例，頗有大概在別之處大學病院勝利率就比擬高;
3.low success rate其實不代表 low quality of care
猶如1中說起的所回收病人的病情上這一點，假如大學病院裏的都是疑問雜癥，不可救藥的病人，而其他病院裏的病人都只是小缺點，那固然大學病院的success rate會低
4.人為低，整體利潤低，時光分派給教授教養都不克不及必定解釋質量差。大概其他福利好，接收的病人少，教授教養研討有助於提高
>>> 參考範文
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.
市場價：HK$ 110
