第一次写argument，寄托没人给改，求拍砖

evangelinsta

69 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.

习作：

In the argument, the author recommends that the company should choose Zeta for the new building project even though Alpha makes a bid promise with lower construction costs. To support this recommendation, the author cites several following comparisons between Alpha and Zeta: The building erected by Zeta, though with identical floor plans, demands lower energy consumption and maintenance expense. In addition, Zeta has much more sable workforce than Alpha. However, I find this recommendation rather unpersuasive since it is rife with unconvincing evidence and poorly supported assumptions. There are several questions should be answered.

The first question that should to be answered is about the difference between the two buildings. Do they share the same headquarter? NO. Are the different headquarters located in the same region? NO. Does the headquarters function in the same way with exactly the same quantitative of employees needed? I don’t think so. There are so many differences between the two buildings. These two buildings were erected ten years ago in two different regions for two different regional headquarters. And the memo shows nothing more in detail about the divisions of the headquarters. As the author indicates, the data shows that the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year though the construction of Zeta building cost 30% more than Alpha building, in this case, the Zeta company seem to be a better choice to work with. But the assumption is highly suspect since the comparison fails to account for the most important basis that the things vary between different regions and headquarters. For one region, the construction cost could be higher than other areas while energy consumption could be extremely low. Moreover, the headcount of the two headquarters does related to the expense in many ways. In this case, the author simply cannot justify the recommendation without answering the question about the major difference that should be concerned between the two regions.

Another question should be answered is that whether there are more data such as the whole expenses for maintenance since ten year ago. As being another reason that Zeta is superior to Alpha, the expense of last year could merely reflect a single story. Is is possible that these two companies had shared almost the same expense of maintenance during the past ten years, except last year, which could be an unusual case owing to the climate in different region or drastic employee turnover in different headquarters.

Even though these questions are properly answered. I can not accept the conclusion that Zeta should be chosen as the new construction company since it is better than Alpha on expense management of maintenance and energy consumption which should not be the major fact taken into consideration when evaluating a construction company. The new question is about the major facts we should concern when ruling out unqualified construction companies. It’s unreasonable to assume that Zeta will perform better than Alpha since it has more stable work force, or it is better at expense control such as energy consumption, it is possible that Zeta can not compete with Alpha on construction quality so it turns to another way by developing these advantages to make up its weak point.

In addition, all comparisons and assumptions rely on the two buildings which were erected a decade ago, but the most important question is about the new building. It is unknown that whether Alpha or Zeta could be competent for the new assignment. There’s possibility that neither Alpha nor Zeta is good at constructing such kind of building. In this case, another qualified bidder in their field should be a correct answer.

In sum, the recommendation is unpersuasive as it neglects a few questions which should be properly answered first . To better assess the evaluate the recommendation I need more answers to the questions about the difference between these two buildings and the different headquarters, more details about the comparison, and the exact capability which required to achieve the new building project which might be different from the former ones.

竹林中人

mark，明天上午来拍

竹林中人

很明显，其第一点写的长度长于后面的，主干段落最好是比较均匀的长度吧。

竹林中人

另外，我建议中间段落中不急于在开头就指出需要回答什么问题，最好你把这个推理的过程先写出来，比如因为有什么样的依据和结论，那么必须需要明确的问题是什么什么。再就是你后面的几点内容比较少，是因为不够具体，如果能举些小例子来说明更好

evangelinsta

谢谢！我一直以为没人看就过去了，你人真好！马上回去改！