GMAT作文范文及解析：大学医院的优势
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.”
Based on his acknowledge to the university hospital and other private hospitals, the author makes the conclusion that the university hospital cannot provide better service than other ones. Two reasons are offered. First, the author lists some data illustrating that university hospital does a worse job in doctor numbers, treating success rate, overall profit, and the employee payment, which means the university hospital therefore cannot compare with the private hospitals. Second, the author argues that the doctors in university hospitals have to spend plenty of time on some other works such as their course teaching, professional research and patients treatment, and thus they cannot focus on the hospital job, which means a worse quality of hospital service. The author's argument is not well founded for the following two reasons.
To begin with, the argument is based on a gratuitous assumption that these data facts about university hospital represents its quality. However, no prove is shown that these factors-doctor quantity, success rate, hospital profit, and stuff payment-represent the all the factors that influence the hospital service, and, on the other hand, there may be some reasons for this situation. For example, less doctor may be the result of less patients compared to private hospitals which face to public and receive much more patients. The 20 percent less treating success rate can also be explained due to the fact that university hospital usually deal with some strange or tough diseases.
Besides, the author thinks that if the doctors cannot spend much time in dealing with hospital job, there is no way for them to take well care of their patients. This argument is unwarranted for putting the connection between the time spent and job done. The time occupied by teaching, and researching doesn't means that the time spent on patient will be less than it needs and that these treating will have bad quality. It cannot deny the possibility that these doctors are good and professional enough to deal with this.
In conclusion, this argument is not sounded as it stands.
报纸的健康板块上的文章：
有一种普遍的错误观念认为大学医院比社区或私人医院更好。这个想法是无根据的，我们地区的大学医院较之私人医院，少雇15%的医生，对患者的治愈率要低20%，总体利润要小得多，给一户员工的待遇比私人医院低很多。而且，很多大学医院的医生将他们的时间分为教学，直到研究和看病几部分。从此可明显看出大学医院的服务质量比其他医院低。
1， 从一个医院的情况就推广到整个太草率
2， 治愈率低可能是因为接受的患者得的病都比较罕见等原因造成的
3， 工资低，总体利润低，时间分配给教学都不能一定说明质量差。可能其他福利好，接受的病人少，教学研究有助于进步
1. 首先，医生的人数与质量之间没有必然的因果原因。profit跟质量也无关系。很可能treating price is significantly lower。
2. 成功率不能说明问题。缺乏其他的证据，忽略了他因：比如因为质量高，所以很多serious illness的，而送往其他医院的一般都是common cases.
3. 时间不能代表问题。因为那些医生所做的研究很可能帮助他们进行治疗。
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.