argument93 G-89-互助社-8.8日同主题写作

hwyireneUID: 200039

------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------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that the cooparative relationship between the company and Alpha company be maitained. To assert his suggestion, he informs us about the conditions of the two office buildings constructed by the two different companies, Alpha and Zeta, moreover, he refers to the working state of Alpha. Though it seems sound at first glance, this conclusion has some flaws which make it unreasonable.

First of all, we are told of the fact that the two office buildings are located in different regions, under such circumstance the oversimplified comparisons on several issues between these buildings are ungrounded. For instance, as the economical state of the two regions are unavailable to us, we can not judge from the bare fact that the cost of building Zeta is 30 percent more than that of Alpha is proper or not.

Also we know nothing of the usage these building are constructed for, and as well as the profit they make every year. Without the comparative amount of the cost to the profit, it's too haste to assert that the maintaining fees of the building constructed by Zeta is waste, says nothing of the generalization that the Zeta company is incompetent in building constructing. As far as we know, it is a common belief that even if the floors of two buildings are exactly the same, the decoration and innate construction, together with the height, is essential when making budgets.

What's more, to take into account of the financial conditions of the two regional offices, and the price standards in those two regions, the argument fails to rule out the possibilities that the price for constructing materials and laboring resources are higher in the region where the Zeta-build building stand than that of Alpha, and the money available for this constructing issue is more crucial to Z region( standing for the region in which Zeta built its building ), and a larger amount of money should be put into it.

What goes next refers to unfair comparison between the two companies on their laboring conditions. The arguer mentions the seemingly stability of Alpha company, to convince us of the wellbeing of this company. But needs no further looking into this issue, we can see that there lacks evidence that the Zeta company's laboring class is not stable. What's more, even if it's true, it's not necessary that a stability in workforce represents the competence of a company. As reported in many companies, such kind of unchanged state may be flaws of the maintenance of a company and only lead to less eagerness to compete with others.

In the final analysis, the argument turns a blind eye to some important factors to make a justified comparison between the work of two companies and hastily comes to a suggestion that it should stop its contract with Zeta company while keep that with Alpha, and assigned all their office building work to Alpha company. In my opinion, it’s unfair to doubt the competence and capability of Zeta when several essential aspects are ignored, and I recommend that a careful investigation into the situations under which those two buildings were constructed maintained and more details be provided to assure a reasonable and equal comparison.


还有一点遗漏：可能有其它更合适的建筑公司，在没有进行充分的市场调查之前，认定某个最好而另一个一无是处是不公正的，而因此决定全部采用这家公司的计划是草率的。

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-8 at 10:07 ]

hwyireneUID: 200039

这是上星期自己练习时写的，今天终于有机会贴出来了
因为写得比较早，当时对模板的运用还不够熟练，大家多多改正吧
有拍必回！谢谢！