argument93 多日不写，限时失败，欢迎各位拍转，有拍必回

mkb57288UID: 2105771

题目
The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large, highly diversified company.
'Ten years ago our company had two new regional office buildings built in two different regions. The buildings were erected by two different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Even though the two buildings had virtually identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build, and its expenses for maintenance last year were twice those of the building constructed by Alpha. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been higher than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Such data, plus the fact that Alpha has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, indicate that we should use Alpha Construction Company, rather than Zeta, for all future building projects.'

正文

The author claims that Alpha is superior to Zeta as a construction company, who is low in cost of construction and maintains, and recommends Alpha to construct all future projects. The claim's credibility, however, is impaired by the failure of ruling out other possibilities and haste generalization.

The threshold problem with the claim is that by citing the 30% more cost, the author assumes that the two building is identical in all aspects. The mere fact that the two buildings are the same in floor plans, however, lends no strong support to the assumption. Perhaps, the building constructed by Zeta has more floors, and are made up with superior materials. In either event, the author cannot confidentially claim that Alpha is better in terms of saving.

Similarly, without detailed evidence about the use of the two building, the mere statistics about doubled maintain expense and higher consumption of energy are scant evidence to justify the assertion. Yet the author fails to provide any such evidence. It is entirely possible that the use of Zeta's construction is far more frequent, which caused the building more worn out. It is equally possible that the extra floors are responsible for the higher maintain expense and energy consumption.  Either scenario, if true, will severely weaken the author's assertion about inferiority of Zeta.

Additionally, the author equates the stable workforce with little employee turnover with one that is superior in quality. For the author does not preclude the possibility that little turnover in workforce might indicates a lag in the improvement of technology. Until being provided with clear evidence about the capacity of Alpha's employee and comparison with Zeta's, the assertion about the superiority of Alpha is still open to question.

Even if the building of Alpha is better than Zeta's ten years ago, by overlooking the possibility that the quality of Zeta has been significantly improved, it is presumptuous for the author to claim the superiority of Alpha. Moreover, even if the construction quality of Alpha's is better in office buildings, it is a unfair assumption that Alpha is fit for other building, and is the best choice for all building in future. The author overlooks the possibility that Alpha may not succeed in future building projects, which is not typical office building, especially considering the client is a highly diversified company.

In sum, the author fails to convince me that Alpha is superior to Zeta and is the best choice for all the future building projects. To better buttress the recommendation, the author need to provide more concrete evidence about the construction and use of both of the past building. To better evaluate the assertion, it is also useful to know the adaptability to other kind buildings.

mkb57288UID: 2105771

ding

mkb57288UID: 2105771

ding

mrealUID: 201732

等一下哈，晚点贴上来：）

mrealUID: 201732

argument93 多日不写，限时失败，欢迎各位拍转，有拍必回

题目
The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large, highly diversified company.
'Ten years ago our company had two new regional office buildings built in two different regions. The buildings were erected by two different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Even though the two buildings had virtually identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build, and its expenses for maintenance last year were twice those of the building constructed by Alpha. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been higher than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Such data, plus the fact that Alpha has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, indicate that we should use Alpha Construction Company, rather than Zeta, for all future building projects.'

正文

The author claims that Alpha is superior to Zeta as a construction company, who is low in cost of construction and maintains,这个分句放在Alpha后面比较好吧，不然有些指代不明了 and recommends Alpha to construct all future projects. The claim's credibility, however, is impaired by the failure of后面应该说得是failure的内容吧，加上not of not ruling out other possibilities and hasty generalization.

The threshold problem with the claim is that by citing the 30% more cost, the author assumes that the two building is identical in all aspects.这句话逻辑不太对吧？作者通过引用30%的额外支出假定两个大楼在各方面都相同？？？ The mere fact that the two buildings are the same in floor plans, however, lends no strong support to the assumption. Perhaps, the building constructed by Zeta has more floors, and are made up with superior materials. In either event, the author cannot confidentially claim that Alpha is better in terms of saving光说saving似乎这句话不太完整，不如直接说全.

Similarly, without detailed evidence about the use of the two building, the mere statistics about doubled maintain expense and higher consumption of energy are scant evidence to justify the assertion. 前面已经说了without。。。后面又说scant听起来有些不搭，考虑不要语意重复？~Yet the author fails to provide any such such？前面没有定义啊，感觉有点指代不明evidence. It is entirely possible that the use of Zeta's construction is far more frequent, which caused the building more worn out. It is equally possible that the extra floors are responsible for the higher maintain expense and energy consumption.你已经自觉承认了Z盖的楼比A的要高？那只是你自己上段假设的吧 Either scenario, if true, will severely weaken the author's assertion about inferiority of Zeta.

Additionally, the author equates the stable workforce with little employee turnover with one that is superior in quality改成the guarantee of superior quality. For the author does not preclude the possibility that little turnover in workforce might indicates a lag in the improvement of technology. Until being provided with clear evidence about the capacity of Alpha's employee and comparison with Zeta's, the assertion about the superiority of Alpha is still open to question.

Even if the building of Alpha is better than Zeta's ten years ago, by overlooking the possibility that the quality of Zeta has been significantly improved, it is presumptuous for the author to claim the superiority of Alpha. Moreover, even if the construction quality of Alpha's is better in office buildings, it is a unfair assumption that Alpha is fit for other building, and is the best choice for all building in future这句话说的绝对了点，作者只是说比Z好. The author overlooks the possibility that Alpha may not succeed in future building projects, which is not typical office building, especially considering the client is a highly diversified company.这后半句especially加的有些牵强啊，你字数也够，不如删掉~
In sum, the author fails to convince me that Alpha is superior to Zeta and is the best choice for all the future building projects. To better buttress the recommendation, the author need to provide more concrete evidence about the construction and use of both of the past building. To better evaluate the assertion, it is also useful to know their adaptability to other kind buildings.

mrealUID: 201732

错误找的没啥问题，有些句子的逻辑值得斟酌，不过总体上语言还是很厉害的，牛牛，加油哦！！！