- UID
- 699376
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-12-6
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
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 eracted 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 buildings's
expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. In additon, 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 construcion 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.
In the memo, the vice president recommend using Zeta instead of Alpha for the company's
new building project. To bolster the recommendation, the president points out that the cost
of Zeta building's maintenance were less than that of Alpha's last year and that the energy
consumption of the Zeta building has lower than that of the Alpha building. The writer also
cites the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with few employees turover. However, the
argument are rife with holes and additional questions should be dealt with.
To begin with, does the fact that the cost of Zeta building's maintenance were less than that
of Alpha's last year necessarily indicate that the construcion of Zeta building is better? I am
afraid not. The author provides scant dates about the cost of both companies' maintenance
before last year. It is entirely possible that Zeta building has been maintained every year,
while it was the first time last year to maintain Alpha buildings. Hence, the cost of Alpha
building's maintenance were far less than the total cost of Zeta buldings' during these years.
Without considering and ruling out the possibility, the president cannot convince me that
the Zeta bulding is better.
In addtion, are Zeta building and Alpha building comparable? It is questinable. So just
based on he energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha
building every year, the writer cannot argue that the Zeta's quality is effective.Perhaps that
Zeta building is primarily used to official work, yet the Alpha building are regarded as a
factory where many machinaries are operating. Thus it is clearly that more electricity or
other energy were consumed in Alpha building than that in Zeta building. Even if both the
companies have the same function. What are the actual quantities of Zeta building's energy
consumption and of Alpha building's? Until informed the detailed statistcs, we cannot rule
out the likelihood that the difference in number of energy consumption between the two
buildings is insignificant. So I remained that the recommendaion is invalid.
Finally, does the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce sufficiently demonstrate the
effectiveness of its construction? Obviously not. Perhaps Zeta confronted cash problem,
and they have no much money to hire effective employees. Or the employees in the
company now are unproductive and ineffective. If this is the case, the quality of Zeta's
construcion may be worsen than that of Alpha's. So the president's recommendation is ill-
adviced.
In summary, the fact that the cost of Zeta building's maintenance were less than that of
Alpha's last year unnecessarily indicate that the construcion of Zeta building is better. And
Zeta building and Alpha building may be incomparable. The fact that Zeta has a stable
workforce insufficiently demonstrate the effectivenss of its constrution. Hence, the
president's recommendation may be irrational. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-3-9 15:57:25
收藏
收藏
楼主
