NTL 11次

wjldmjUID: 2632023

In this argument, the author recommends that their company should employ Alpha Construction Company, with the Zeta Construction Company replaced. To support his conclusion, the author firstly cited a figure of ten years ago that the Zeta expended 30 percent more to construct a office building than the Alpha did, albeit the two buildings had almost same blueprint. Additionally, the maintenance fees and the energy cost of Zeta building were also much higher than that of Alpha. The author also states that the Alpha has few staff substitution. However, based on faulty reasoning, the argument is unconvincing.

To begin with, merely the cost differences between the Alpha and the Zeta on the construction and maintenance of the office building are insufficiently to prove that Alpha Company is better than Zeta Company. Firstly, even the two construction company share the same floor idea and plan, however, the two expected buildings are about to be erected in different locations, the diverse of geological conditions, climate conditions, and the relative items of construction policy, will lead to disparate capital consumption. What's more, there is a crucial possibility that the structure the Alpha's building risks in much worse quality than that of Zeta. Secondly, referring to the more \energy cost of the Zeta, the situation may be caused by the reason that the building from Zeta holds much more people compared with that from Alpha, and sustains a noteworthy heavier utilization. So without providing direct evidence to show that the Zeta more dissipated than the Alpha, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands.

Further more, the stable workforce is also bootless to approbate the merit of the Alpha company. It is known that to success in the acute competition in business market, many firms are introducing the mechanism of employee's eliminating, namely, every year there will be ration quantity of staff be superseded due to their ranking of performances sinks to last 5% or 10%. So sometimes a frequent turnover of employees may also presents a positive management and improvement of a corporation. So according to this facet, no evidence in this argument could be used be show that the Alpha is better than the Zeta. Lacking of canny analysis, the author cannot
confidently to suggest the replacement of the Zeta by Alpha.

Additionally, an unattractive but also pivotal detail also weaken the argument. The figure of the comparing are posted ten years ago, so it keeps unknown that how are the two companies doing now. Ten years may abide magnitude of transformation of these two firms.

To sum up, the argument is unreliable as it stands, and in order to strengthen it, the author have to provide the direct evidence as well as strict analysis to show that the Alpha company is really better than the Zeta company in both quality and economy for author's firm.

gaofei323UID: 2588256

来喽

wjldmjUID: 2632023

Thanks

wjldmjUID: 2632023

Thanks