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.
The author of the statement above recommends that between to construction companies, Zeta and Alpha, it is should be first one to work with. This conclusion is based on the comparison between the two buildings each construction company built separately and the pertaining expenditure each made for the employer company. In order to illustrate the weak points and strong points of each construction company, there are several vital questions the author needed to answer. The answer to these vital questions directs the reader to evaluate the recommendation.
First, the author informs us that the floor plan of each buildings was identical. But, are they thoroughly identical? The floor plan does not guarantee that the two building are significantly identical to compare against each other. The height of each floor, the height of the windows, the ceilings with a skylight, all of these can make significant differences. Therefore, the author needs to answer how much the variables are same in both buildings in order to evaluate the recommendation.
Secondly, the two buildings are in different regions, the author needs to ask whether the regions are comparable. In one region the weather might be more temperate while in the other it might be quite harsh requiring consumption of energy. Whether it is cold or it is hot, the air conditioner system of the homes demand different use of energy. Furthermore, the costs can be due to the different prices of the construction materials in two regions, or one place might be earthquake-prone region and demanded the different precautions than the other region. With the regions being different, the work of companies become incommensurable when the only standard is the price.
Finally, the author mentioned the little turnover rate of employees of Zeta company as an advantage over the Alpha company. Indeed, it is true that if a company constantly changes its employees, it becomes less trust worthy. However, in what scale of staffs did the turnover happen? It is possible that Alpha Company has much more employees that naturally its turnover is bigger than the Zeta Company. If the Alpha has significant more staffs there would be no inferiority for the alpha for the turnover rate.
In short, as discussed, to evaluate the recommendation there are several vital questions needed to be answered. Answers direct us to judge whether the author’s comparison among the two companies holds true or not. Without such answers, as several cloudy parts are involved in the authors’ recommendation, the recommendation fails to be persuasive.
Sentence: First, the author informs us that the floor plan of each buildings was identical.
Description: A determiner/pronoun, singular is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to each and buildings
-------------------------
argument 1 -- not OK. There is nothing wrong with the floor plan of each building which was identical.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
------------------------------
Need to analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
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.
condition 2:
In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction.
conclusion:
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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 417 350
No. of Characters: 2117 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.519 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.077 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.877 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.955 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.531 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.536 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5