- UID
- 713247
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-1-23
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
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.
Outline:
1.Maintenance cost
2.Energy construction
3.Workforce; ten years ago
Argument :
In this memo, the author recommends using Zeta for new building projects, even if Alpha’s big promises lower construction costs. To supports this recommendation, the author cites some data showing that Zeta cost only half costs in mantenance of Alphas. Also the author points out that the energy consumption of Zeta is lower and Zeta has a stable workforce. While the recommendation is plausible at the first glance, close scrutiny if this argument reveals that the argument is uncovincing in many regards.
Citing a half cost in mantenance of Alpha, the author assumes that the less cost in maintenancemake Zeta more reliable and comprtitive. However, a question that needs to be answered is if the half cost in mantenance of Alpha last year can persuade the author choose Zeta. Admittedly, lower cost in maintenance may shows a company’s high quality work, yet, the author only using last year’s data can mean noting. Perhaps, the building’s expense for maintenance of Zeta and Alpha have fluctuated in the past ten years, and it is likely that the average expenses during the ten years of Zeta higher than Alpha. Thus only one year’s datacannot be used to support the author’s recommendation. Still perhaps there other factors beyond Zeta and Alpha influenced the results, such as residents in Zeta’s building have more protective sense of that building than people in Alpha’s, or the various climate and environment in these two regions are quete different resulting in the different expenses for maintenance between these two company. Only if these or other possibilites can be ruled out, can the data can be used to back the argument. `
Additionally, the author falsely assumes that the less energy comsumption is noly relevant with Zeta, while, another question is still on the way, basing on this unfounded assumption: are there no other factors leads to the less energy comsuption in Zeta’s buildings than Alpha’s? While a company’s high quality construction may result in less energy comsuption, yet the author have not offered details to surport it. It is likely that the region where is the Zeta’s building has mild climate in the whole year and need not any air conditioning. In contrast, the region where Alpha’s bulding is hot in summer and cold in winter, which make residents have to turn on their air conditioning for a long time in the whole year. It is also likely that residents who lives in Zeta or Alpha have the dinstinct habits of saving energy: residents in Zeta’s building use ernergy saving products,and turn off the public lights at the day time, while people in Alpha’s building use common products and keep the public lights on all the day. We just don not know. So the author’s reasoning is definitely flawed unless the author can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.
Furthermore, even if the author’s deduction and inference made in the argument above is true, the author still fails to perform a feasibility of analysis of using Zeta for new building projects. Firstly, we may wonder if a stable workforce is reliable enough for a reason for choosing Zeta. Perhaps the stable workforce cannot represent that Zeta is raliable, even this information can challenge the author’s argument itslef. It is likely that the workers in Zeta too sluggish to leave a company, enjoying the salary and having no passion for work. No evidence show the worker’s attitude to their work in Zeta, mere stable workforce means nothing. Also, it is ten years ago that the company build two new buildings in two regions, even if Zeta is better for its job ten years ago, will the same situation suits for today’s? Presumably, the construction of Zeta has become worse and that of Alpha has become much better during the past ten years. The author hastily believes that the experience of the past can be borrowed by the present times.
As for constructing a new building, many factors must be take into account. However, the recommendation the author make is invalid and misleading, basing on my above analysis. He/she cannot expect a nice building, if the uthor just make the decision of choosing Zeta with the information above. Careful analysis of all the respects I have presented is the best first step to make a wise choice for the new building. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-5-19 17:00:18
收藏
收藏
楼主
