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 argument is of a memo from the vice-president of a company suggesting, which company is to be chosen to build the new office. The vice-president concludes by saying that Zeta should be given the new building project, even though Alpha promises a less construction cost. The memo cites the reasons of lower maintenance cost and lower energy consumption costs to bolster his claim of citing Zeta for the new developmental project. The argument has many loopholes, as there are multiple evidences required to corroborate the claim of the vice-president. Without the evidences, the argument does not make a cogent case.

The Vice-president cites the reason of Energy consumptions being less in the building constructed by Zeta, compared to the building made by Alpha. The argument fails to provide the evidences with respect to the reason of difference between the energy consumption in both the buildings. Furthermore, the reason of low maintenance cost is questionable due to the lack of evidence regarding, what maintenance was required in both the buildings. Additionally, the argument does not provide evidence regarding the reason for low energy consumption in Zeta. Additionally, the argument states that Zeta constructed the building at a cost 30 percent higher than Alpha, it fails to provide evidence regarding the profit percent of both the companies in construction and the quality of material used for construction. The argument ends with the conclusions that Alpha has promised a lower construction cost, but fails to mention about the proposal of Zeta.

The argument states that the energy consumption is lower in Zeta, however it fails to provide the evidences for citing so. For example, the lower energy consumption would vary with respect to the climatic differences in the regions of both the buildings, the number of employees working in both the buildings, the type of devices used in both the buildings. It may be possible that less number of people work in Zeta and energy efficient devices are being used, the energy consumption is low. The argument is seriously called into question due to the lack of these evidences, without which the argument is seriously weakened.

Additionally, the memo suggests that the cost of maintenance is higher in building built by Alpha, but fails to state what maintenance was required in both the buildings. For Instance, The building made by Alpha was renovated and restructured every alternate year and did not require any structural maintenance cost as compared to that of building made by Zeta. The arguments position can be bolstered or weakened depending on the details of the maintenance work carried out.

Furthermore, the initial statement in memo suggests that Zeta takes 30 percent more cost in construction of the building as compared to Alpha. The argument fails to provide evidence with respect to the profit share of both the companies. For example, Alpha might have a very less profit percent as compared to Zeta. Furthermore, the argument fails to mention about the construction quality, it may be possible that Alpha creates the building with a lower percent of profit but higher quality of materials. The argument is weakened due to the lack of evidences regarding the previous projects of Alpha and Zeta. The argument also fails to cite the difference between the companies 10 years later and only states about the promise made by Alpha, but fails to mention anything with respect to the deal with Zeta. It may be possible that Alpha has improved its construction and now makes better buildings and has a better reputation than Zeta. The argument is seriously weakened due to the lack of the evidences regarding the first project started 10 years ago and the current deals offered.

In conclusion, the argument cites reasons but does not support them with proper evidences, rendering it unconvincing. It fails to provide evidences regarding the reasons for difference between energy consumptions of both the buildings, the different maintenance costs incurred. Furthermore, the argument fails to provide evidences regarding the present offers by the companies and details regarding the projects made 10 years ago. Thereby, the argument makes an unconvincing case and therefore, the conclusion made by the vice president would be inconsequential.