【寄托No.1】杀G小组 第5次作业 A69
常规训练，目的是为了增加大家的解题速度，打字速度，句式词汇应用
大家一起加油！
题目如下
Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions. The buildings were erected by different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
作业要求：
（1）331的同学2月29晚上之前完成，其他同学1号晚上之前，大家在这个帖子里，每人占一楼，把自己的作业贴上去
（2）具体的内容要求：
A、写作题目为 新69
B、一定注意文章的要求，可以参照一下我的那篇word的观点
（3）提交作业之后，请互改的伙伴尽快修改好，一天时间，最多两天，特殊原因跟我说吗。
（4）小组人数目前已经确定，请大家继续努力，互相帮助，杀G成功！ 本帖最后由 greenbeanmeimei 于 2012-3-1 13:22 编辑
Hello 终于写完了，觉得这篇很棘手，大概两三天没有写的缘故了，大家狠狠地批，谢啦
In the memo, the vice president compared and contrasted two construction companies, Zeta and Alpha about their performances in the latest decade, and recommended that Zeta should be the preference in face of a new building project. It might at first glance that the vice president arrived at his/her conclusion with cogent evidence, while close scrutiny on the memo indicates that this suggestion is rife with questions that urgently need answering.
To start with, one question that needs to be answered is whether the two office buildings erected a decade ago were compared on a similar basis. The author mentioned that the two buildings had identical floor plans, but he/she failed to give evidence, perhaps purposefully, that the two regional headquarters are of commensurate size. If Alpha's office building is twice as large as Zeta's with 30 or more additional floors, the 30 percent surplus of construction cost is appropriate and acceptable. Building a higher building requires more construction materials, a larger workforce, and employments of better architects, all of which added up to additional expenses of Alpha's building program. If this question is not answered clearly, we cannot jump to the conclusion that Zeta saved more.
Additionally, we don't know whether the climate conditions of where the two headquarters sit in were essentially the same. Chances are that Alpha's building was seated in a fervid weather with year-long below-zero temperatures while Zeta's located in a favorable weather comfortable to live in. If this is the case, Alpha's more energy costs and maintenance expenses could in part result from its harsher weather conditions since heating is indispensible in this cold place and chances of breaking down of facilities are larger due to bad weathers. Also, bad climate conditions could also increase turnover rates of employees who seek for better working conditions, which could properly explain why in the memo Zeta has a stable workforce while Alpha has not. If climate discrepancy were so different between the two buildings, it is therefore too hasty to make any judgments.
Last but not least, if all of the questions mentioned above are clearly answered that the two headquarters are of equal size and in similar environments, another question should be replied whether the Alpha's lower bid construction cost difference from Zeta's could on the whole offset other expenses such as energy consumption, expenses for maintenance, etc.that added up together. Perhaps the two companies’ expenses gap for maintenance and energy take up only a small portion, say only 10 percent of the overall 10 million dollars' construction. While by comparison Alpha's lower bid saves up to 2 million dollars. If it is the case, then choosing Alpha is more sensible. The vice president's failure of a larger view on the two companies may lead his/her company to a loss.
To sum up, several essential questions mentioned above should be answered in order for the vice president to make a right decision for the coming building program, In the process of deciding which construction company is better, the leader should broaden his horizon and take other elements other than expenses and costs into consideration. After all, the newly office building is intended to be solid and comfortable enough for workforce to work in and for the company to increase its overall work efficiency.
greenbean绿豆
有志者事竟成！ 本帖最后由 846136085 于 2012-3-1 21:49 编辑
抱歉，又几乎是最后一个了～～
In this memo, the vice president comparedthe performance of two construction companies-Alpha and Zeta and recommendedusing Zeta for the new building project. It seems somewhat convincing at thefirst glance, however, lacking in convince evidence makes the argument muchweaker than it appears to be. More details should be provided before we canevaluate the recommendation effectively.
Firstly, the vice president provided thedata the expenses for maintenance of Zeta's building last year is only halfthose of Alpha's, although they have identical floor plants. However, there areso many factors, like air pollution, clement or rainy climate, can influencethe maintenance expenses other than the difference between the buildingsthemselves, which were determined once constructed. In addition, theperformance of the management company and the labor cost in the two differentcities can affect the maintenance expenses much, besides the natural force. Furthermore,even the maintenance expenses of Zeta building was much less considering allthe factors, one year is far from enough to evaluate one company's performance.Maybe a terrible storm struck the city Zeta building in, more maintenanceexpenses are very reasonable, considering some accidents. More data is neededbefore we make the judgment.
Secondly, the vice president focused on thepoint that the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than thatof Alpha every year since its construction. Just like the maintenance expenses,many other factors, especially the climate, can affect the energy consumption.Maybe the Zeta building in a place with a mild climate and nice sunshine, sothe cost for air conditioning is much lower than the Alpha building, whichmaybe in an arid place. Even given the two building were built in places withsimilar climate, the performance of the building management company and usagedata are needed, rather than the mere energy consumption data, since we cannotcompare the consumption of a half-used building and a full-used one.
Thirdly, the vice president added the factthat the Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, to convinceus that the Zeta company is undertaken an effective management and suitable forlongtime cooperation. But the real reason leading to the little employee turnoveris required, since much things, even something bad can lead to this result.Maybe in the city which Zeta Company locates, the unemployment rate is so highthat all employees in Zeta Company value the job so much. So the littleemployee turnover has nothing to do with an effective management, and the suitabilityis much doubtable.
To sum up, there is no denying that it is aduty for the management to choose a more suitable company for the new buildingproject, however, much detail is required to strength the argument provided bythe vice president. 本帖最后由 leijerry888 于 2012-2-28 22:54 编辑
In this argument, the author recommendsusing Zeta rather than Alpha for the new building project, disregarding hisassumption that Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs. To support hisconclusion, the author provides several evidences and assumptions to justifyhis judgments. However, the reasoning paths provided are far from convincing,to fully evaluate this recommendation, a few more questions are needed to beanswered.
The first question which is crucial to thisjudgment is which company provides lower construction cost of identical floorplans today. The author's argue that constructed by Zeta costs 30 percent moreis based on the data of 10 years ago. Disregard of the fact that the crediblyof this specific old comparison itself was weak, because Alpha and Zeta, eventhey were building with identical floor plans, they were building them indifferent regions, so plenty of other factors may not be the same. Such as the prizesof construction materials, worker's salaries, etc. It's nearly meaningless tomake a present day call. May be nowadays, Zeta's actual cost of construction isincredible huge than Alpha. Based on this situation, other advantages of Zetawould be totally diminished.
Another question needed to be answered iswhy the expenses for maintenance of last year and the energy cost ever sinceconstruction of Zeta were less than those of Alpha. Maybe many more people wereworking in the building constructed by Alpha than Zeta's, thusly, it certainlybrought more costs of maintenance. And it is very possible that the regionwhere Alpha's building located experienced more severe environment incidentsevery year. For example, sandstorms, extremely hot weather, and so on. All ofthis would suggest a higher cost of maintenance. Without a more sophisticatedsurvey of maintenance of these two buildings, a comparison of the two companiesis irresponsible.
The third question needed to evaluate theauthor's conclusion is what the current situation of Alpha's workforce statueis. This memo gives no such information. So a merely information of Zeta'sworkforce situation is useless. Because there is a good chance that Alpha's workforceis better.
Additionally, Alpha promises a lowerconstruction costs. But how low is it? Is it enough to redeem this company'sother disadvantages? Because, if it is, then we probably should choose Alphainstead of Zeta. And are these two companies' bids credible? This question isalso very important to make the judge. Even if Zeta is better, is there a thirdcompany which is better than these two? A broader survey should definitelyhelpful.
In conclusion, maybe the author'srecommendation of Zeta is right. But the evidences he provided are weak. Tomake a more convincing conclusion, a few more questions needed to be answeredto evaluate the argument. 本帖最后由 babyenoch 于 2012-2-28 20:34 编辑
69 The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large, highly diversified company.
"Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions. The buildings were erected by different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
-----------------------------
(提纲)
First of all, it is unfair to infer based solely on the comparison between the expenses for maintenance of the Zeta building and that of Alpha that Zeat does better work than Alpha. The inference relies on an assumption that the comparative quality of the two company's building, rather than some other factor, was resiponsible for the comparative the expenses for maintenance.
Then, the recommendation is also based on another incomplete comparison and is wholly unpersuasive by this comparison. The vice president simply assumes that the energy consumption of the Zeta building is lower than that of Alpha just because the quality of Zeta's work is better than that of Alpha's. He, however, does not provide any evidence that is indeed comparable.
In addition, the vice president provides a fact that.....
-----------------------------------------
(536 words, more than 47 min)
The vice president advocates that they should use Zeta rather than Alpha for their new building project. To justify his recommendation, he compares the expenses for maintenance and the energy consumption of two buildings. He also provides a fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover. The argument, however, is rife with a series of holes and poor assumptions, and thus, is wholly unpersuasive.
First of all, it is unfair to infer based solely on the comparison between the expenses for maintenance of the Zeta building and that of the Alpha that the quality of the Zeta building is better than that of Alpha. This inference relies on an assumption that the comparative quality of the two company's building, rather than any other factors, was responsible for the comparative the expenses of the two companies. It is untenable. Many other factors would have effect on this result. Perhaps the environment of the area the Zeta building located is better, such as no sandstorm, no industrial pollution. Or perhaps the owners of Zeta building take good care of the facilities in this building. Such factors would lead to lower expenses for maintenance. Even if no other factor has influence on the result, we still cannot get the conclusion, since the vice president only provides the expenses of last year. How much money they have spend on maintenance last ten years? We do not know. Perhaps the total expenses last ten years for maintenance of the Zeta building are much higher than that of Alpha.
Then, the recommendation is also based on another incomplete comparison and is wholly unpersuasive by this comparison. The vice president simply assumes that it is just because the quality of the Zeta's work is better than that of Alpha's that the energy consumption of the Zeta building is lower than that of Alpha. He, however, do not provide any evidence that is indeed comparable. Conmen sense tells us that a variety of other factors, also play major roles. For example, the Zeta building is located in a place featuring full sunshine and agreeable weather, so it is rarely need air-conditioning systems. As a result, it is certain to consume lower energy. The vice president cannot convince me, unless he insures that no other factors can effect on the energy consumption.
Finally, the president provides a fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover in order to back his recommendation. Yet, he cannot persuade me by this evidence. Perhaps Alpha still have this feature. Moreover, little employee turnover does not mean high quality of work. Perhaps Zeta is lack of institutions to manage its employee working hard, but the Alpha have. So some lazy workers will stay in Zeta, on the contrary, this will lead to a poor quality of work. In order to strengthen this evidence, the vice president should make a connection between the stable and the quality of the company.
The paragraph given only scratches the surface of what must be evaluated about the quality of the two companies' work in order to use a better company for their new building project. Much more works is needed by the company before the recommendation is accepted. 本帖最后由 琼央 于 2012-3-3 13:01 编辑
因为之前发的文章很多字打错了，所以一下是稍微整理过的。
In this passage, the author recommends using Zeta instead of Alpha for the new building project. With several reasons to explain why
Z provides better service,the passage has pointed out some valuable pieces.However, some evidence given are rifed with holes and thus more thoughtful work is needed to make a convincing suggestion.
First of all, to make sure that the energy consumption of Zeta building indeed has been
lower than Alpha's every year, we need to find out whether or not
the building itself is a well-built construction and thus can save lots of energy. If it is true, then Zeta has really great benefit in constructing. But if is not, it may turn out to be some other factors that help control the energy consuming rate .For instance, the Z building could have hired a professional group to run the energy system efficiently, or, workers in the building may be well educated and have strong self-responsibility to save energy at work. All these factors mentioned above should be taken into consideration in order to make a more warranted judgment.
Second, to tell whether or not the expenses for maintaining
the Zeta building is cheaper than that of Alpha's, it's vice for the author to give
clear answers about the yearly cost of two companies .The evidence of last month is not adequate. In case that the Alpha kept requiring less money most during the past decade but suddenly raised its level last year, the Alpha still might be seen as preferable. In another situation, it's likely that the total cost of the Z building has already outnumbered its opponent. Only by displaying more information, say annual data of every both of the companies, can we make a valid conclusion about which company of the two charges fewer expenses for maintenance.
Third, we need to find out to what extend do the stability of workforce of the two companies link with the construction performance. Employees of a company share so many similarities cells in common with the human body, small but fundamental. Without them, not any operations in modern times can exist. However, it's the employers who steer the direction and control the building process in the company. In other words, the employees come and gone may not necessarily impact the quality of the construction work. If a stable workforce really matters, more details should be shown in the passage.
To propose using Zeta rather than Alpha for the new building project, the author certainly has done some research on both sides of the two companies, as can be seen in the passage. But with questions above remaining unsolved, it's still too early to come to a solid agreement.
449字
本帖最后由 chasedream2012 于 2012-2-29 22:55 编辑
69. The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large, highly diversified company.
"Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions. The buildings were erected by different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In this memo, the president suggests choosing Zeta instead of Alpha for their new building project base his past experience. However, under scrutiny we can find that this decision is really ill-founded.
To begin with, the president substantiates his assertion by cites the fact that the maintenance expenditure of Zeta in last year is only half of the Alpha’s. While it is true that Zeta is more economical in last year, the president cannot draw the conclusion that Alpha spent more money than Zeta in repairing the building every year. It is entirely possible that in first 9 years, the edifice built by Alpha did not need any repair and the maintenance fee is low while the Zeta’s building need completely repair in these years and waste a great deal of money; therefore the totally expenditure of Alfa is far less than Zeta, which render the recommendation of president unpersuasive.
In addition, the president asserts that the Alpha building has consumed more energy than Zeta’s every year since the construction of building. Nevertheless, the president fails to provide any specific information about the circumstance about the Alpha building and Zeta building. We may raise the doubt that what’s the weather like in the location of Zeta building and Alfa building respectively? Perhaps Alfa building is located in a place where temperature has great variance in every season, and it is very cold in winter and very hot in summer, so the local residents should utilize air condition to keep summer cooler and winter warmer. In the contrary, the Zeta building may be situated in a place where temperature is steady and appropriate for the humankind to live in; hence the local inhabitants never use air condition and conserve a vast amount of electricity and energy. Additionally, we also need to take into account the acre and the total number of staff in Alfa building and Zeta building, since the area of building and amount of staffs can sway the energy consumption. Without answer these questions above, the president cannot draw his conclusion hasty.
Finally, the president also cites the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce. Nonetheless, the president only provides information about Zeta, and we have no approach to know what the condition of Alpha about labor force. Moreover, a company with little employee turnover may evince that the company is lack of dynamic and vitality; hence this message lends no support to the president’s recommendation.
In sum, in order to make this argument more persuasive, the president need to answer the following questions: what is total maintenance fee of Alpha building and Zeta building respectively for past 10 years? And what is the detail circumstance (e.g. weather, amount of staffs, and area of building) of Alpha building and Zeta building? Finally, the president can investigate the maintenance fee of Zeta and Alpha for the new building, and if the Alpha’s expense for maintenance is lower than Zeta, then perhaps Alpha is a better choice since Alpha’s bid for construction is lower than Zeta.
求版主猛批！！！！！！！！！！！
本帖最后由 cinkie 于 2012-2-29 23:30 编辑
36min，511 words
In this argument, the speaker cites that even though the construction expense by Zeta is 30 percent more of that by Alpha, the maintenance fee is relatively lower ever since the complement. And therefore the company should choose Zeta for their new building project despite the fact that the proposed prices of Alpha is lower. The argument seems plausible at first glance, but careful scrutiny reveals that unless several essential questions are answered, the argument is unwarranted as it stands.
To begin with, the speaker claims that the construction expenditure of Zeta is higher but maintenance fee lower, and concludes that the quality of Zeta is better. It is very reasonable in common sense, however, the speaker overlooks a fundamental question that whether the price level of the two regions is the same ten years ago. Since the two building were built in two regions, chances are high that the building of Zeta is located in a relatively expensive area, and therefore the expense of the construction. And if we rule out the difference in CPI, it is entirely likely that Alpha costs more.
Futhermore, as CPI changes every year, the speaker needs to give us specific response to the question that whether the price level of the two regions changes at the same pace. There is a possibility that even though ten years ago region of the Zeta building is more expensive, the price level of area of the Alpha building has increased significantly and surpassed Zeta. Then the misguiding result of the cost of two companies makes sense if the scenario is similar. And in respect to the higher maintenance of the Alpha building,it is also possible that the Alpha building contains more workers and is relatively busier than Zeta. Thus the labor cost, daily clean-up,etc. would result in more expenses. Without ruling out each scenario, the speaker's conclusion would be seriously undermined.
What is more, given that the questions above have been answered. The speaker still could not reach the conclusion with the reason that the work force of Zeta is stable because of the low employee turnover rate. Whether the statistics are reliable would cast great doubt on the conclusion. There is a very likelihood that Zeta has prettified the number in order to present a better result to the customers. Moreover, the low turnover rate does not necessarily establish a causal relationship with the quality of construction. It is entirely possible that the employees of Zeta are conditioned to their existing situation and reluctant to accept new conceptions and technology. Alpha, however, even with a relatively higher turnover rate, is more creative and utilizes the newly founded technology that is more efficient.
To sum up, well-intentioned as the argument is, the speaker needs to give specific answers to the qustions above and carefully evaluate the feasibility of each plans of two companies. And the company also needs to take into account the actual budget for the building project and make the best of the finance of the company. 下手晚了一步诶
The vice president recommends using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project for the reason that Zeta built a lower energy consumption building ten years ago. His claim might seem logical at first glance. However, with careful examination, we find many potential questions need to be answered to evaluate fully the vice president's recommendation.
To begin with, the vice president implies the fact that two companies have same floor plans. However, we do not know the exact information of the two building and the unknown details might determine which building to be a better one. The mere fact that the two buildings were erected on identical plans could not rule out the possibility there might be a large number of differences between the two buildings. Specially, we do not know the style and the using frequency of the two buildings. Common sense tells us that different style of buildings might result in the different energy consumption. Moreover, it might turn out to be the case that the building constructed by Alpha is a ten layers-mansion while the one built by Zeta is a three layers-building so that the Zeta's building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's . Unless the vice president could provide sufficient information to answer those questions, his recommendation is unfounded.
Even if the vice president could prove evidence that the conditions of two buildings are exact the same, there still might be some questions that need to be answers to help us evaluate the recommendation. In the vice president's memo, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build in contrast with that by Alpha while the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year. Nevertheless, how much money did Zeta cost more exactly? How much money does the building constructed by Zeta save on lower energy consumption? We do not know. It is entirely possible, for instance, that the economy of the building might be ignored in comparison with the huge extra money paid by the process of building. Furthermore, the vice president makes a naive conclusion that the lower energy consumption would surely bring profit to our company while the initial cost is exorbitantly high.
In order to strengthen his conclusion, the vice president should provide the answers to those questions above.
Even if the vice president have proven that it is more economy choice to choose Zeta for our new building, the vice president fail to lend considerable support to the assumption that Zeta still would construct a more economy building in contrast with Alpha. According to the vice president, Alpha constructed the building ten years ago. Does Alpha improve its building skills significantly in 10 years? Does Alpha use more energy-save materials in contrast with Zeta? If the vice president could not provide the answers to those questions, we could not accept his recommendation.
In sum, without answer those questions, the vice president's conclusion would be much weaker than it seems. In order to make a wiser determination, a valid survey might play a critical role. However, with the holes and assumptions in his claim, the vice president's recommendation would not be persuasive enough. 5# babyenoch The vicepresident advocates that they should use Zeta rather than Alpha for their newbuilding project. To justify his recommendation, he compares the expenses formaintenance and the energy consumption of two buildings. He also provides afact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover.
(既然要总结论据，我认为最后都提到吧，还有10年前的建造成本这个很重要的论据没提呢)The argument,however, is rife with a series of holes and poor assumptions, and thus, iswholly unpersuasive.
First of all, it is unfair to infer based solelyon the comparison between the expenses for maintenance of the Zeta building andthat of the Alpha that the quality of the Zeta building is better than that ofAlpha. This inference relies on an assumption that the comparative quality ofthe two company's building, rather than any other factors, was responsible forthe comparative the expenses of the two companies. It is untenable. Many otherfactors would have effect on this result. Perhaps the environment of the areathe Zeta building located is better, such as no sandstorm, no industrialpollution. Or perhaps the owners of Zeta building take good care of thefacilities in this building. Such factors would lead to lower expenses formaintenance. Even if no other factor has influence on the result, we stillcannot get the conclusion, since the vice president only provides the expensesof last year. How much money they have spend on maintenance last ten years? Wedo not know. Perhaps the total expenses last ten years for maintenance of theZeta building are much higher than that of Alpha.(首先，此段前半部分的quality这个概念太广泛，没看出来具体指的是什么。其次，后半部分的句式语法错误众多，写的时候稍微留心一些应该可以避免。)
Then, the recommendation is also based on anotherincomplete comparison and is wholly unpersuasive by this comparison. The vicepresident simply assumes that it is just because the quality of the Zeta's workis better than that of Alpha's that the energy consumption of the Zeta buildingis lower than that of Alpha. (quality还是没明白到底是什么。但原题材料中的连词是in addition, 而不是 thus，作者并不是基于什么evidence来assume出Z的能源消耗少，能源消耗本身就是作者给出的evidence)He,however, do not provide any evidence that is indeed comparable. Conmen（common） sense tellsus that a variety of other factors, also play major roles. For example, theZeta building is located in a place featuring full sunshine and agreeableweather, so it is rarely need air-conditioning systems. As a result, it iscertain to consume lower energy. The vice president cannot convince me, unlesshe insures that no other factors can effect on the energy consumption.
Finally, the president provides a fact that Zetahas a stable workforce with little employee turnover in order to back hisrecommendation. Yet, he cannot persuade me by this evidence. Perhaps Alphastill have this feature. Moreover, little employee turnover does not mean highquality of work. Perhaps Zeta is lack of institutions to manage its employeeworking hard, but the Alpha have（has）. So some lazy workers will stay in Zeta, on the contrary, （此句不应有转折连词）thiswill lead to a poor quality of work. In order to strengthen this evidence, thevice president should make a connection between the stable and the quality ofthe company.
The paragraph given only scratches the surface ofwhat must be evaluated about the quality of the two companies' work in order touse a better company for their new building project. Much more works（work） is needed by the company before therecommendation is accepted.
首先，关注写作指引：Write a response in which you discuss whatquestions would need to be answered in order to decide whether therecommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. 是要写作人提出还有哪些问题需要提出来评估结论。那么应该把写作指引作文文章的重点展开内容。但此文貌似没有体现的很明显，尤其是第三自然段。
另外，贯穿此文的quality我确实没能理解，但我感觉至少第二段和后面几段出现的quality指的应该不是一个内容。如果baby你的意思是通篇指的建设工程质量的话，那么这一点是不太合适的，材料中identical floor plans已经点明此点。我认为不应该去避重就轻，在此点上找逻辑漏洞。
不管如何，我感觉这篇的逻辑主线体现的很清晰，展开也很足够，如果能扣住写作指引的话，应该是不错的。 The vice president recommends using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project for the reason that Zeta built a lower energy consumption building ten years ago. His claim might seem logical at first glance. However, with careful examination, we find many potential questions need to be answered to evaluate fully the vice president's recommendation.
To begin with, the vice president implies the fact that two companies have same floor plans. However, we do not know the exact information of the two building and the unknown details might determine which building to be a better one. The mere fact that the two buildings were erected on identical plans could not rule out the possibility there might be a large number of differences between the two buildings. Specially, we do not know the style and the using frequency of the two buildings. Common sense tells us that different style of buildings might result in the different energy consumption. Moreover, it might turn out to be the case that the building constructed by Alpha is a ten layers-mansion while the one built by Zeta is a three layers-building so that the Zeta's building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's . Unless the vice president could provide sufficient information to answer those questions, his recommendation is unfounded.
Even if the vice president could prove evidence that the conditions of two buildings are exact the same, there still might be some questions that need to be answers to help us evaluate the recommendation. In the vice president's memo, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build in contrast with that by Alpha while the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year. Nevertheless, how much money did Zeta cost more exactly? How much money does the building constructed by Zeta save on lower energy consumption? We do not know. It is entirely possible, for instance, that the economy of the building might be ignored in comparison with the huge extra money paid by the process of building. Furthermore, the vice president makes a naive conclusion that the lower energy consumption would surely bring profit to our company while the initial cost is exorbitantly high.
In order to strengthen his conclusion, the vice president should provide the answers to those questions above.
Even if the vice president have proven that it is more economy choice to choose Zeta for our new building, the vice president fail to lend considerable support to the assumption that Zeta still would construct a more economy building in contrast with Alpha. According to the vice president, Alpha constructed the building ten years ago. Does Alpha improve its building skills significantly in 10 years? Does Alpha use more energy-save materials in contrast with Zeta? If the vice president could not provide the answers to those questions, we could not accept his recommendation.
In sum, without answer those questions, the vice president's conclusion would be much weaker than it seems. In order to make a wiser determination, a valid survey might play a critical role. However, with the holes and assumptions in his claim, the vice president's recommendation would not be persuasive enough.
唔。。。编辑了很久结果全部丢失了。。。重口 。。。我就简单说下问题吧。。
1.对错误的叙述比上次详尽多了，比较清楚
2.基本语法错误实在是太多了，第一、第三人称跟现在时动词没加s，形容词当副词用，从句漏加that（有了更清楚，特别是直接跟在动词后的），etc. 这个问题很严重啊，考官看到这种错误太多也会影响心情的是吧 = =
3.语言复杂性不够，we do not know这种简单结构出现太多次，
本帖最后由 asahi 于 2012-3-2 03:26 编辑
求拍
Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions. The buildings were erected by different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
提纲
1,时间上, 十年前和现在情况不同, 所以用Z未必好
2, 维修上说, 去年只花了一半, 之外9年如何呢? 论据不充分,
3, 能量消费少未必就好, 整个建筑物的运转如何. 未必都是由于建设的原因, 也许因为员工节省或者工作性质不同造成能量消费少.
4,稳定的工作力量无关.
While it may be true that Zeta is able to do a better work for the new building project, the author’s argument does not make a cogent case for the conclusion. It is easy to understand why the author would like to recommend Zeta, but his evidence is rife with holes and assumptions, which is not strong enough to lead to the proposal.
By making a comparison between the buildings constructed by Alhpa and Zeta ten years ago, the author reports that it’s better to use Zeta for the new building project. It is not clear, however, as for the new building, whether the construction condition is totally the same as ten years ago. Everything changes so fast along with the increasing expanding international market. Perhaps due to the development of the global market, the construction materials importing from foreign countries are much more cheaper than those in the national market ten years ago. Then in this case, it might be more appropriate to use a foreign company instead of Zeta. Moreover, by recommending Zeta, the author fails to take into account all the other construction methods. We just do not know if there are other ways, such as cooperation works, are able to offer more excellent project than Zeta and Alpha. Thus, unless the author provides more evidence, it is wired to make the judgment by the experience ten years ago.
Additionally, the author recommends Zeta because the building’s expenses for maintenance last year were less than those of Alpha’s. While cost less last year, we do not know if that building had maintained a low expense all through those ten years. What’s more, is there any other factor that besides the construction works caused this expenses difference? As showed in the passage, the two building located in different regions. Perhaps the building that constructed by Alpha suffered a lot by the abominable weather condition, like continuous wet air due to a year round rainy weather. In this case, definitely, the outward appearance and inward system was more likely damaged thus the cost of maintenance was increasing. Consequently, by this poor argument, the author cannot prove Zeta did better than Alpha.
Building upon the fact that Zeta’s building had less energy expense than that of Alpha, the author implies Zeta could do the same work on the new building. If this two building functioned in the similar area, this may be true. But if one building, for example, was the department of invention and development for the new product, which was full of laboratories with all kinds of equipments supported by electricity and other energy, while the other building was used for warehouse and sales office, then undoubtedly Alpha’s building cost more energy expenses. Regardless of whether or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between the construction work and the energy expenses.
Last, the stable workforce with little employee turnover in Zeta is not necessarily connected with its better construction work as well.
Examining all the various angles and factors involved with Zeta and Alpha construction company, the argument does not justify Zeta is the best choice for the new building. While the proposal does provide a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action. 4# leijerry888
In this argument, the author recommendsusing【？】 Zeta rather than Alpha for the new building project, disregarding his assumption that Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs【assumption？】. To support hisconclusion, the author provides several evidences and assumptions to justifyhis judgments【重复】. However, the reasoning paths provided are far from convincing,to fully evaluate this recommendation, a few more questions are needed to beanswered.
The first question which is crucial to thisjudgment is which company provides lower construction cost of identical floorplans today. The author's argue that constructed by Zeta costs 30 percent moreis based on the data of 10 years ago. Disregard of the fact that the crediblyof this specific old comparison itself was weak, because Alpha and Zeta, eventhey were building with identical floor plans, they were building them indifferent regions, so plenty of other factors may not be the same. Such as the prizesof construction materials, worker's salaries, etc. It's nearly meaningless tomake a present day call. May be nowadays, Zeta's actual cost of construction isincredible huge than Alpha. Based on this situation, other advantages of Zetawould be totally diminished.
【个人觉得although。。。。这段论据的重点在后半部分，就是说维护费用低~~所以攻击30%这个感觉有点偏了；其实这段仍然是可以用的，只要把攻击的漏洞转移到维修费上】
Another question needed to be answered iswhy the expenses for maintenance of last year and the energy cost ever sinceconstruction of Zeta were less than those of Alpha. Maybe many more people wereworking in the building constructed by Alpha than Zeta's, thusly, it certainlybrought more costs of maintenance. And it is very possible that the regionwhere Alpha's building located experienced more severe environment incidentsevery year. For example, sandstorms, extremely hot weather, and so on. All ofthis【these】 would suggest a higher cost of maintenance【energy cost】. Without a more sophisticated survey of maintenance of these two buildings, a comparison of the two companies is irresponsible.
The third question needed to evaluate theauthor's conclusion is what the current situation of Alpha's workforce statueis. This memo gives no such information. So a merely information of Zeta'sworkforce situation is useless. Because there is a good chance that Alpha's workforceis better.
Additionally, Alpha promises a lowerconstruction costs. But how low is it? Is it enough to redeem this company'sother disadvantages? Because, if it is, then we probably should choose Alphainstead of Zeta. And are these two companies' bids credible? This question isalso very important to make the judge. Even if Zeta is better, is there a thirdcompany which is better than these two? A broader survey should definitelyhelpful.
【这段感觉有点不合适，建造价格低能弥补建筑质量差的问题吗？建造价格低，但是后期的维护费用呢？这段写的有点散了】
In conclusion, maybe the author'srecommendation of Zeta is right. But the evidences he provided are weak. Tomake a more convincing conclusion, a few more questions needed to be answeredto evaluate the argument.
整体来说的话，这篇比上篇好了很多，而且扣题很紧，值得我学习~
但问题还是有的：感觉攻击的漏洞太多，所以显得比较散，而且有些点写的就不够深入，有一种戛然而止的感觉。所以我的建议是 选择三到四个漏洞来写就可以了，优先选择对结论最有削弱力度的证据攻击~对于每个点都深入下去，这样有深度，也能保证字数。
顺便回答一下我文章的问题吧~~
我觉得原题用了一个although建筑费用高，但是维修费低，强调的重点应该在维修费低上吧，所以我在首段只写了后半部分，不过可能不太合理~大家讨论一下吧
另外，文中的quality都是指工程质量，个人觉得题目列出的所有论据无非是想说明Z公司的建筑质量更好，所以尽管A公司便宜，但还是要选Z公司~~~不知道是不是我理解的问题，还是写的有歧义~~
最后，“材料中identical floor plans已经点明此点。我认为不应该去避重就轻，在此点上找逻辑漏洞。”你写的这句我不是很明白。。。
45分钟，496个字
Concerning the memo stated, the author holds the opinion that the choice of Zeta is better than that of Alpha in the new building project. However, the author did not provide evidences reasonable enough to make the decision. There are such questions as follow.
First,what is total expences of the two companies? The author's decision is due to the economic factors in some distance. However, he did not show the total costs of the two buildings, which contain constructions, maintainance, energy consuming and so on. For instance, even the expence of Zeta in maintanance, energy saving is low than that of Alpha, however, the total costs may be the reversing condition, that is, the Zeta company will spend more in the total. I need specific details of costs, and I cannot be convinced by such statements which are not convincing enough. I do not think this limited examples are able to convince anyone. In this case, we are due to choose the Alpha company.
Second, we require the level of the two companies in mantain buildings. Even the cost of Zeta is lower than Alpha in maintanance, the author failed to state the service level of the two competitors in managing this job. On the contrast, even Alpha charged more, twice, than Zeta, however, the higher price company's service level is several times than that of the lower price one. If I were the manage, I will choose the dearer one, opposing to the author's argument.
Then, concerning the energy consumption, the author needs to states out the specific aspects in using energy. The building built by Zeta company may have only one light, on the contrast, there are plenty of lights, machines, and some other ways which will consume energy, it is surely that Alpha's building will spend more energy. What is more, we need to know the price of the energy, no matter the electricity or the water, and so on. Cost will not be the unique reason in making decision. The author must states the specific evidence so that the argument will be reasonable.
Finally, what is the exactly detail of employee turnover of these two companies? Assuming that there are 1,000 workers in Alpha, while 100 in Zeta, and even Alpha has more employee turnover than that of Zeta, it is still possible that the company who has a stable workforce will be the Alpha. Following the author's ideal, but, on the contrast, we should choose the Alpha company. Specific details are required to support the recommendation, in this case, we will be able to choose the Zeta, when mentioned to the workforce's stable.
Above, the author cannot convince me if he did not take these questions into account in making this decision. Different choices are due to different results of these questions. The choice of Zeta needs apropriate answers which are powerful enough to make the decision in the new task. 11# cinkie
In this argument, the speaker cites that even though the construction expense by Zeta is 30 percent more of that by Alpha, the maintenance fee is relatively lower ever since the complement. And therefore the company should choose Zeta for their new building project despite the fact that the proposed prices of Alpha is lower.（最好这句话提一下speaker，这样就与第一句联系得更紧密一些） The argument seems plausible at first glance, but careful scrutiny reveals that unless several essential questions are answered, the argument is unwarranted as it stands.
To begin with, the speaker claims that the construction expenditure of Zeta is higher but maintenance fee lower, and concludes that the quality of Zeta is better. （the quality of building constructed by Zata或者是the quality of Zata’s building）It is very reasonable in common sense, however, the speaker overlooks a fundamental question that whether the price level of the two regions is the same ten years ago. Since the two building were built in two regions, chances are high that the building of Zeta is located in a relatively expensive area, and therefore the expense of the construction. And if we rule out the difference in CPI, it is entirely likely that Alpha costs more.（quality可以展开一些，具体是什么quality? Building方面的还是Material方面的？）
Futhermore, as CPI changes every year, the speaker needs to give us specific response to the question that whether the price level of the two regions changes at the same pace. There is a possibility that even though ten years ago region of the Zeta building is more expensive, the price level of area of the Alpha building has increased significantly and surpassed Zeta. Then the misguiding result of the cost of two companies makes sense if the scenario is similar. And in respect to the higher maintenance of the Alpha building, it is also possible that the Alpha building contains more workers and is relatively busier than Zeta. Thus the labor cost, daily clean-up, etc. would result in more expenses. Without ruling out each scenario, the speaker's conclusion would be seriously undermined.(这段说的很详细，也很到位，不过建议和第二段一起说会更好一些，第三段可以试着阐述一些其他方面的question)
What is more, given that the questions above have been answered. The speaker still could not reach the conclusion with the reason that the work force of Zeta is stable because of the low employee turnover rate. Whether the statistics are reliable would cast great doubt on the conclusion. There is a very likelihood that Zeta has prettified the number in order to present a better result to the customers. Moreover, the low turnover rate does not necessarily establish a causal relationship with the quality of construction. It is entirely possible that the employees of Zeta are conditioned to their existing situation and reluctant to accept new conceptions and technology. Alpha, however, even with a relatively higher turnover rate, is more creative and utilizes the newly founded technology that is more efficient. （这段模版句用的很好，但是缺少一些实体句的填充，如果时间多一些可以多扩充一下论据）
To sum up, well-intentioned as the argument is, the speaker needs to give specific answers to the questions above and carefully evaluate the feasibility of each plans of two companies. And the company also needs to take into account the actual budget for the building project and make the best of the finance of the company.（结尾的时候可以把以上的那些问题简要的重复一下，这样就更好一些 ）
总的来说比上一次的argument好很多，至少在语言表达上少了很多Chinese English，语言也更为连贯，但是感觉找的漏洞有些少,比如你花了很大的篇幅讲CPI，讲price level，其实这些都只是一个漏洞，文中讲了zata在maintain方面的优势，但是这个点就可以写很多出来：比如这两个建筑虽然平面布置图是一样的，但也许是zata建的房子楼层更少，因此更节能，或许zata建的房子使用率更少，因此maintain方面话费更少。这些方面都可以考虑一下
恩，我自己写得也不好，只能给你一些一家之言的建议，希望大家都能慢慢进步，一篇比一篇好~
页:
[1]
2