4#okqishiN69.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.
outline
1.
Ten years ago. changes in ten years.(market environment, company condition, requirement for the buildings)
2.
Using zelta may not be economic. Maintenance and energy consumption may be different between the two office buildings based on whether the condition of the two buildings is the same.
3.
Only consider the price? Stable workforce with little employee turnover doesn’t mean that its efficiency is high.
In this argument, the arguer advocates that his company should use Zeta rather than Alpha for their building project. While this recommendation seems reasonable, this arguer fails to make a cogent case for using Zeta based on the condition and costs of the two companies ten years ago. It is easy to understand why the arguer recommend Zeta, but this argument is rife with holes and questions need to be answered, and thus, not strong enough to lead to the using of Zeta.
To begin with, according to the conditions ten years ago, the arguer recommends Zeta. The arguer unfairly assumes that all conditions will remain unchanged during the ten years. However the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Perhaps, in the ten years, the environment of the construction has changed. Or perhaps, the Zeta company has altered the supplier of the original materials, and as a result, the quality of the building can't be ensured any more. Unless the arguer can provide further evidence to exclude all the concerns, it is unwarranted to draw the conclusion.
Building upon the implication that all conditions remain unchanged during the ten years, the arguer suggests that using Zeta may be more economic, even though Alpha's bid promises lower constructions. The argument unfairly assumes that the cost of Zeta is lower than Alpha. However, the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate the assumption. Though the buildings expenses for maintenance and energy consumption is lower than Alpha's, we do not know whether the two buildings are for the same using. As we know, the using of the buildings determines the cost of such aspects. Maybe the floors and the rooms of the Zeta are fewer. The Zeta building was constructed in cooler region which needs more heating. Even though the two building is in the same condition, we still don't know the cost of the maintenance and constructing which is higher. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to provide more information about the constructing conditions of the two buildings.
What's more, the arguer implies that owning a stable workforce with little employee turnover, Zeta would provide better service. However, the arguer unfairly assumes that a stable workforce lead to better service because he/her doesn't differentiate stable workforce with little employee turnover and better service. Better service requires not merely the stable workforce, but the large scope of the company and the high efficiency of the employee. Only if a company possesses all of advantages referring above, can it provide better service. Without ruling out rational illustration, the arguer cannot justifiably draw the conclusion.
In conclusion, this arguer fails to substantiate his/her claim that his company should use Zeta rather than Alpha for their building project, because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to answer the following questions with regard to whether all conditions will remain unchanged in the ten years, the cost of Zeta is really lower than Alpha and Zeta can authentic provide better service. Therefore, if the argument had given the answers of the questions discussed above, it would be more thorough and logically acceptable.作者: aresperfect 时间: 2012-4-10 22:22:37
万分感谢~作者: okqishi 时间: 2012-4-11 11:58:29
本帖最后由 okqishi 于 2012-4-11 12:00 编辑
In this argument, the arguer advocates that his company should use Zeta rather than Alpha for their building project. While this recommendation seems reasonable, this arguer fails to make a cogent case for using Zeta based on the condition and costs of the two companies ten years ago. It is easy to understand why the arguer recommend Zeta, but this argument is rife with holes and questions need to be answered, and thus, not strong enough to lead to the using of Zeta.
To begin with, according to the conditions ten years ago, the arguer recommends Zeta. The arguer unfairly assumes that all conditions will remain unchanged during the ten years. However the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Perhaps, in the ten years, the environment of the construction has changed. Or perhaps, the Zeta company has altered the supplier of the original materials, and as a result, the quality of the building can't be ensured any more. Unless the arguer can provide further evidence to exclude all the concerns, it is unwarranted to draw the conclusion.
Building upon the implication that all conditions remain unchanged during the ten years, the arguer suggests that using Zeta may be more economic, even though Alpha's bid promises lower constructions. The argument unfairly assumes that the cost of Zeta is lower than (that of )Alpha. However, the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate the assumption. Though the buildings expenses for maintenance and energy consumption is lower than Alpha's, we do not know whether the two buildings are for the same using. As we know, the using(usage) of the buildings determines the cost of such aspects. Maybe the floors and the rooms of the Zeta are fewer. (Maybe)The Zeta building was constructed in cooler region which needs more heating. Even though the two building is in the same condition, we still don't know the cost of the maintenance and constructing which is higher. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to provide more information about the constructing conditions of the two buildings.
What's more, the arguer implies that owning a stable workforce with little employee turnover, Zeta would provide better service. However, the arguer unfairly assumes that a stable workforce lead to better service because he/her doesn't differentiate stable workforce with little employee turnover and better service. Better service requires not merely the stable workforce, but the large scope(scale) of the company and the high efficiency of the employee. Only if a company possesses all of advantages referring above, can it provide better service. Without ruling out rational illustration, the arguer cannot justifiably draw the conclusion.
In conclusion, this arguer fails to substantiate his/her claim that his company should use Zeta rather than Alpha for their building project, because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to answer the following questions with regard to whether all conditions will remain unchanged in the ten years, the cost of Zeta is really lower than Alpha and Zeta can authentic provide better service. Therefore, if the argument had given the answers of the questions discussed above(在正文段你没有形式上discussed 这些questions，你只discuss了lacking of what evidence和invalid assumptions，而只在最后一段末尾提到questions略显不足), it would be more thorough and logically acceptable.
1.可以看出你的写法是老G Argument的写法 2.整个正文段和开头段你都没有提到instruction中的“what questions need to be answered”，只有最后一段match了instruction。正文段基本都在讲lacking of what evidence和invalid assumptions，内容是不错也有说服力，但只是内容，形式上你得跟着instruction走。就算正文段按照老G的写法，起码开头段和结尾段你需要呼应instruction中的“what questions need to be answered” 3.整篇文章太多however，要学会换着用，nonetheless/nevertheless/however... 4.文章基本通顺，表达流畅 5.outline不错 纵观全文，lz写的还是不错的，只是在呼应instruction方面还有所欠佳。多加练习，再接再厉！作者: aresperfect 时间: 2012-4-11 15:04:50