Argument 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. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Such data indicate that we should use Zeta rather than Alpha for our contemplated new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
提纲: 1. Zeta 较低的维护费用可能是由于其他原因导致的
2. A去年的维护费用比Z高不代表过去都比Z高,可能在过去年间Z的维护费用更高
3.Z的能耗低可能是由于其他原因引起的
4.Z的员工流动性小并不意味着员工建设好和管理好
写作:
In this argument, the arguer recommends that using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha’s bid promises lower construction cost. To support this recommendation the vice president cites the following facts: (1) the building which constructed by Zeta expended only half of that Alpha constructed for maintenance last year;(2) the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction;(3) Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover. The argument suffers from some critical fallacies.
The major problem with this argument is that the author fails to consider and rule out other possibilities that might account for the lower expense for maintenance of building which Zeta constructed. Lacking such evidence it is possible that the building which Zeta constructed locates in a place which enjoys low price level. In fact, perhaps as a result of the building’s lower utilization rate or the employers’ care of building and do not need to be repaired.
Moreover, the mere fact that the building’s expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha’s is insufficient evidence to conclude that Zeta is fit for the new building project. The author overlooks the possibility, that last year’s expense might be an aberration, and that in most other years the average expense for maintenance of Zeta building is more than that of Alpha. Unless the arguer can demonstrate the expense for maintenance of the two buildings in other years, the arguer’s concern about this conclusion is unfounded.
Another flaw that weakens this argument is that one or more other factors are instead responsible for the lower energy consumption of the Zeta building, especially since Zeta building locates in a place where enjoys plenty of sunshine and comfort temperature. Perhaps Alpha building which relies on air-condition due to the large difference temperature. Common sense and experience tells us these factors also play major roles in deciding the consumption expense.
In addition, the author pretend to identify that Zeta owns a strict management and a group of staff with high quality. However, the author overlooks the possibility that Zeta’s staff tend to older and prefer to stable situation, and that Zeta’s staff are too indolent to find a job in other companies. So that the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and probably misleading.
To sum up, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.
对于AW我表示焦急中^^ | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-4-24 10:10:35
收藏
收藏
楼主
