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 constructio

The vice president concludes that they should have their new building constructed by Zeta instead of Alpha. He supports his assertion by citing the fact that while Zeta has higher construction costs, energy consumption as well as maintenance for their Zeta building is lower than that of their Alpha. Whilst this argument may eem plausible, closer inspection reveals that it lacks sufficient evidence to bolster its claims.

Firstly, the argument suffers from a lack of quantification as there is no information about the amount of dollars that it costs to build Zeta or the amount of money that their Zeta building saved (as a result of lower energy consumption and expenses). If the cost of Zeta buildings are significantly greater than the money they save, it would not be wise to do business with them as their company will lose money in the long run. Hence to strengthen his argument the author must provide information about the amount it costs to construct Zeta buildings and the amount saved. Furthermore this information must clearly show that savings outweigh the cost of construction.

Secondly, there is not enough information to suggest that Zeta buildings will save money in the first as the author bases his assertion by a comparison between two buildings. In other words the sample size is too small. Even if their Zeta building did cost them less than their Alpha, this does not necessarily mean that these findings can be generalized to all buildings such that one can say that all Zeta buildings are more cost effective than Alpha. It may very well be that Alpha buildings are more cost effective but for some reason, it just so happened that Zeta costs less for those particular buildings. Thus to strengthen the argument the author must provide information about a greater sample size which shows that on average, Zeta buildings are a better investment than Alpha.

Another flaw in the president’s reasoning is the fact that even if Zeta buildings are indeed more cost effective than Alpha that does not necessarily mean that that would be the case for their new building as well. The author does not provide any information as to what activities the new building would be apart off. If the new building is the site of a certain type of activity which produces a lot of energy (for example smelting) the energy costs of the new building may not necessarily be offset by Zeta’s construction (unless it is known that Zeta is proficient in that particular activity). Thus to strengthen the argument the author must provide information about what activity will take place in the building.

In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to make a claim as bold as that of the author’s as key elements of the discussion have been left out. One must have knowledge of all aspects of a situation before statements can be made hence unless the author can provide this evidence to bolster his proposition, the argument is one of wishful thinking as opposed to something that would yield actual results.