GMAT考试在4月5日进行了换库，楷维留学小编为大家整理分享4月份GMAT作文机经，这是一篇关于大学医院质量低于其他类型医院的写作机经，考生朋友可以看看，作为一个复习GMAT的参考。

　　请随时关注楷维留学指南GMAT板块的更新，小编会为大家呈现更新更全更新的机经！

　　【原始】

　　作文题目，是说讨论大学医院和公立医院。文章说的是大学医院没有公立医院好。因为大学医院医生和患者比例低收入少，还有说大学医生要教学，研究还有训练什么忘记了。本人英语很烂能记得就是这些。

　　【原题】

　　OG43(同11月JJ 7)

　　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.”

　　Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

　　【译文】

　　一直以来有一个共同的误解：大学医院要好于社区医院和私立医院。这个结论是毫无根据的--在我们地区的的大学医院里，医生(比私立医院)要少15%，病人的治愈率要低20%，而总利润也要少得多，而且医务人员的工资也相对比私立医院要低。此外，大学医院的医生需要把时间分配给教学、研究和治疗病人;显而易见，大学医院的护理质量低于其他类型的医院

　　【参考思路】

　　1、样本不足Insufficient sample

　　1作者提到的医院位于“我们地区”(in our region)，不具有代表性

　　2从一个医院的情况就推导到整个太草率,one example is logically unsound to establish a general conclusion.

　　2、无根据假设Gratuitous assumption：虽然学校医生要上课，做研究，照顾病人，同时工资少，并不一定导致quality of care比其他医院低，也许大学医院的医生的医术更高，医疗设施更好。

　　3、survey is doubtful——可疑调查：数据取得来源可疑，调查可能不够公正客观

　　4、Casual-relationship——有他因：治愈率低不能说明大学医院的quality of care就低，可能是由于得普通疾病的病人往往选择社区医院，而去大学医院的病人一般得的都比较罕见难以治愈的疾病

　　【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.