前程百利2015-07-02最新更新GMAT作文机经
27.校医院私立医院对比
【本月原始】
【1】
说大学的医院不如社区或私人医院好，因为大学医院里的员工较少，医生也较少，profits较低，而且大学医院的医生都会花时间去teaching, conducting researches，因此专一治病。
【考古】
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.”
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。
【参考思路】
1.false analogy：将大学医院与所有其他医院相比较。大学医院与其他医院有好多不同点，例如在规模上，医生质量上，所接纳病人的病情上等;
2.样本问题，以偏概全： 仅仅一个region的例子就推出所有的大学医院都不好，这种generalization是绝对不严谨的;It is entirely possible that 这个地方的只是一个特例，很有可能在别的地方大学医院成功率就比较高;
3.low success rate并不代表 low quality of care (如同1中提及的所接纳病人的病情上这一点，如果大学医院里的都是疑难杂症，病入膏肓的病人，而其他医院里的病人都只是小毛病，那当然大学医院的success rate会低)
4.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
【参考范文】
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.
完整机经版本点击下载：
以上就是前程百利小编为大家整理的2015-07-02最新更新GMAT作文机经，希望能对大家的GMAT作文备考有帮助，在此，小编祝大家都能取得理想的成绩。
您还可能关注：
