新argu 69求拍~

duoduoxie

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 argument, the author reaches the conclusion that Zeta construction company will be better than Alpha for a new building project of a large, highly diversified company, though Alpha’s bid promises lower construction costs. To justify the assertion, the author points out that considering two buildings with identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, the building’s expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha’s. The author also cites that Alpha building consumes more energy than Zeta and Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover. Close scrutiny of the argument, however reveals none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.

First and foremost, the author commits a false analogy in assuming that the two buildings are exactly the same in all aspects. However, the arguer show no evidence to support this assumption. Perhaps the building constructed by Alpha is much more higher than the one with Zeta, which can also result in the higher costing in building Alpha one. Without accounting for this and other possible reasons that might contribute to the higher cost of building constructed by Alpha, the author cannot convince me that Zeta company is superior than Alpha.

Moreover, even if the two buildings is constructed in the same way, the mere fact that the maintenance fees are twice as much in Alpha’s as in Zeta’s is scant evident that Zeta has a more strong ability in building than Alpha. Perhaps the workers in Zeta’s have more awareness of protecting the building than those in Alpha. Or perhaps there was a big fire in Alpha several years ago. In short, lacking evidence that other factors which effects the building are the same , the author cannot convince me than the building constructed by Zeta is more stronger than Alpha’s.

Finally, the author unfairly implies that more energy consumed is attributable to the building itself. It is entirely possible that employs in Alpha building needs working longer time everyday than workers in Zeta. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors that might have served to energy consuming, the author cannot justifiably conclude that Zeta company has advantage in building over Alpha.

In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author would have to substantiate that the two buildings were exactly same and that the workers are the same level of awareness of building protection. To better assess the argument I would need to know more information about the operation, performance and recent development of two companies.

普渡哥

the author commits a false analogy in assuming that the two buildings are exactly the same in all aspects. However, the arguer show no evidence to support this assumption.

这句话有问题。。。前后都是否定，还有ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ转折。。。

普渡哥

多展开写写

duoduoxie

好的~O(∩_∩)O谢谢

竹林中人

建议上提纲吧，这样便于我们迅速找到你的逻辑上思路上的问题