- UID
- 271484
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2007-9-2
- 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.
In this memo the vice president of a largecompany recommends using Zeta rather than Alpha for their new building project.To support his recommendation, the vice president cites the anecdotalexperience that their company have ten years ago. Besides, he makes thecomparison between the expenses for maintenance of the two buildings thatconstructed by Alpha and Zeta. In addition, he points out that Zeta has a morestable workforce comparing with Alpha. Close scrutiny each of these evidence,however, none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.
In the first place, the vice presidentshows that when Zeta and Alpha were employed to build two buildings ten yearsago, although the floor plans were the same, the cost for Zeta to construct thebuilding cost 30 percent more. Whereas, the cost this company paid formaintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. The floor plans are thesame give no credible support to that the cost to construct these two buildingsshould be the same. The vice president overlooks many other factors that mayhave an effect on the expenses, such as the whole construction plan of thebuildings, the material they are going to use, and the local cost of workforceif the buildings are constructed in different places. Moreover, the presidentgives no evidence to show whether these two buildings have the same quality.Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the quality of the buildingconstructed by Zeta is much lower than the one constructed by Alpha. Without rulingout the other possible factors and offering the supporting evidence, thepresident can not convince me that Zeta is better than Alpha.
In the second place, even if all theevidences that the vice president gives are happened under the same conditions,the vice president ignores the possibility that the expenses for maintenancelast year was just an aberration. Since the vice president offers no evidenceto show its not an aberration, it is equally possible that only in last yearthe expenses for maintenance of Alpha's building was more than that of Zeta's,and it was the opposite situation in all the other nine years. Assuming theexpenses for maintenance of Zeta's building was always less than that ofAlpha's in last ten years, the president gives no evidence to show that theexpenses saved in this maintenance process can cover the surpass cost spent inthe building process by Zeta. Without offering such evidences, the vicepresident fails to convince me that Zeta is better than Alpha.
In the third place, the fact that Zeta'sbuilding consumes less energy than Alpha's accomplishes nothing towardbolstering the recommendation. The vice president overlooks may other plausiblereasons for the difference between these two buildings, such as these two buildingsmay located in different places, thus may have different longevity day time anddifferent weather, and the two buildings are built for different purpose.Without ruling out all these possible factors, the vice president can not makehis recommendation persuasive.
Finally, a stable workforce lends no crediblesupport to this recommendation. The vice president gives no evidence to show astable workforce may have a positive effect on the output of the constructioncompany. Lacking such evidence, it is also possible that a stable workforce maydecrease the productivity of workers since long time working with the same teammay cause the workers lost passion. Until the vice president gives therelationship between the status of the workforce and the productivity of theconstruction company I remain unconvinced that Zeta is superior to Alpha.
In sum, the recommendation relies ondoubtful facts that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster therecommendation, the vice president should offer the evidence that Zeta andAlpha built the two buildings under the same conditions and all the expensesfor maintenance of the two buildings in last ten years. In addition, for betterassessment of the recommendation, I also need the evidence that a stableworkforce can promise a high productivity.
写的第四篇argu，时间超了十分钟……因为慌乱，有些没有写透 |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-7 15:50:01
收藏
收藏
