- UID
- 724731
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-20
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The author concludes in this argument that Alpha is more appropriate than Alpha for the contemplated new building project. To support his conclusion, the author shows the dominance of Alpha in building cost, expenses for maintenance and energy consumption, together with workforce stability. However, the conclusion is vulnerable in that the argument is based on several questionable assumptions.
First, the author mentions that two buildings had identical floor plans , but Zeta spent more than Alpha, assuming that cooperation with Zeta is virtually expensive. This is obviously unreasonable, for construction cost not only depends on floor plans. Other elements such as building materials, pay for workers also play an important role. For instance, although Zeta's construction cost is higher, their building materials may be more sound, durable, and healthy than Alpha's, which can contribute to a safer, stronger and healthier office building. In contrast, Alpha Company may gloss over the building project, like reducing the quality and quantity of building materials. This can contrarily produce an unqualified office building. If this was true, Zeta rather than Alpha seemed to be the better choice for the new building project. Therefore, this evidence is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
Second, the author falsely assumes that the expenses for maintenance and energy consumption of the Alpha will still be relatively low for the new building project, just due to the data from the construction process ten years ago. This assumption is unwarranted, for things rarely remain the same over extended period of time. Taking energy consumption for example, with natural resources diminishing gradually, the price of petrol and some other fossil fuels is increasing at the same time. Because of their large propotion in electricity generation, cost electrity cost rise consequently. Since huge facilities essential for building construction are powered by electricity, more energy assumption is needed in construction companies like Alpha. In that case, the assumption of energy consumption is definitely unreliable. The author once more fails to strengthen his conclusion.
Further more, the arguer pluses a fact that Alpha has a stable workforce with little employee turnover. We do not know where this conclusion comes from. It seems that there is no survey about Alpha's workforce condition mentioned in the argument. Even if the fact was true ten years ago, according to my explanation in the third paragraph, things might change ten years later. There is possibility that Alpha company begin to decay and many employees considerate hunting for a new job. Thus the workforce is not that stable as the author imagined.
From all above, we can see clearly that most errors weakening this argument are convergent in mistaken assumptions that things preserves unchangeable even during a period of time.
To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that Alpha is better than Zeta for new building project, because evidence based on improper assumptions doesn't offer strong support to what the author maintains. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-3-15 13:26:51
收藏
收藏
