argument93 [0710G Victors互助小组]第9次作业 by Lemon

lemon71500UID: 2335516

TOPIC: ARGUMENT93 - 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."

In this argument the speaker presents his/her attitude that this company should choose Alpha Construction Company, rather than Zeta, for all future building projects, with some data and examples to support this point. At first glance his/her statement seems to be logical and reasonable, yet in fact some reasons in this paragraph are vulnerable, they are not strong enough to persuade others to believe this decision.

First of all, we should not neglect the region factor, since these buildings are located in different areas, if the Zeta’s building is near the center of this city and the price of the location and building primary material is probable much higher, so the transport distance and cost may dissimilar, either. As a result the cost of Zeta's building is higher for this construction needs a high investment.

At the same time the speaker compared the cost of the buildings and indicated that the building constructed by Zeta is 30% more expensive than the one built by Alpha. Here s/he failed to demonstrate the difference between these buildings, the speaker told us they have an identical floor plans, but their internal structure may be different, if the building constructed by Zeta is more complex and larger than the other, with an excess demand of material and workforces it is no wonder that its cost is higher, what's more, the expenses for maintenance is higher could due to a reason of more electric machines, more expensive of water price and something like this.

Furthermore, if the Alpha company has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, this is not a proper reason to identify that its service and work efficiencies won't change, several years latter its workers may get older and tired of this kind of work, without a new supplement in this company may result in a lack of useful workforce. Simultaneously we need to pay our attention to the Zeta Company’s details, maybe their age structure are more reasonable and workforces are more veteran to adapt the market competition.

Consequently, in this argument the speaker's statements and evidences are not substantial enough to support his/her point. If s/he wants to demonstrate this conclusion is right, there needs a deep and thorough investigation, such as the details of these buildings and their difference in location. Only then can s/he draw a conclusion which is more accurate and reliable.