[a习作temp] 【10G 燃烧的战火】clementine_w的习作，A69 [复制链接]

clementine_w
UID：3378752

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 60
寄托币: 71
注册时间: 2012-9-27
精华: 0
帖子: 19

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2012-9-27 00:23:05 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

A69，欢迎指教，请拍~
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．
-------------------------------------------------------
字数：超过了，近600，没有限时写。
In this memo, they vice president of the company recommend that Zeta Construction Company would be the better choice, comparable to Alpha Constrution Company, for their new building project. To support this recommendation, the vice president points out that Zeta Constrution Company ask for a lower energy consumption and maintenance fees and some other evidences. However, in order to fully evaluate the assumption, the vice president has to consider many questions concerning the relevance between the evidence provided and the conclusion, or otherwise the rationality of this decision will be impaired.

The first question points to author's threshold assumption that the soley two construction example of the two companies, respectively, on different regions actually could explain the the actual construction competence of the two companies. The vice president fails to substantiate more evidence to complete the question. If these two buildings constructed by two companies cannot be representitive of the general constrction standard of the two companies,just say that in another area the building constrcted by Zeta Company generates more problem than its merits, then these evidences stating that Zeta Construction Company's comparatively lower energy consumption and lesser maintenance fees would make no sense. Accordingly,the president cannot draw any firm conclusion that Zeta Company is the best option for the next building project.

Even assuming that the two companies' general construction capability are reflected in two buildings mentioned in the recommendation, another question has to be asked about whether the data presenting a seemingly favorable facade of the Zeta Construction Company. It is entirely possible that its thirty percent greater construction cost of the building constructed by Zeta Company exceedingly outweighs the cost saved by its comparatively lower maintenance expenses and energy consumption. Then, the merit hold by the low cost in energy usage and maintenance of Zeta Company would be no more advantageous than Alpha Construction Company. Futhermore, the vice president only refer to last year's energy and maintenance expense despite that two buildings has been constructed for ten years. Assuming that last year's information is a particular case among ten years, and the other nine years stating a reverse of the condition of maintenance cost and energy consumption in the memo, then the virtue of the Zeta Construction Company will cease to exist.

An additional question directs to the assumption that the overall stable workforce defines Zeta Construction Company a solid company best capable of building constructions, and its implication suggesting that the workforce mobility would make a construction company less competent. However,a steady employee group does not necessarily mean a capable workforce for constructing. If the steady workforce refers to workers whose age over forty or fifty, the development of the building project would be severely affected, even stifled. In this case, a solid labour force would not seem quite favorable. Consider a different perspective on the mobility problem, it is likely that the labor force turnover would infuse vitality for the company, which is exactly a construction company needs because most of their work requires arduously labor work.Thus, an effective correlation between stable workforce and an efficient company cannot be made.

In conclusion, to persuade other executive officers to invest in Zeta Company to construct the next project would be rather thorny for the vice president if he or she insist observation made from the memo. Nevertheless, if he could supply supple evidence stating clearly that in every aspect, including construction cost, the maintenance fees, energy cost and the workforce that the Zeta Construction Company is way more capable and cost-friendly than the Alpha Construction Company, the chances of convincing other officials are still high.