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 constructi

The writer of the argument concludes that for all further construction works, Alpha Construction Company should employ replace of Zeta company. To support this conclusion the arguer points out that the Zeta company has more expenditures than Alpha. This conclusion cannot be accepted as it is in that it rests on a number of premises all of which can be challenged in one way or another.

The first problem with the argument is that the writer assumes that construction site of Alpha company is identical to the construction site of the Zeta company in all respects. However, there is no evidence to definitely prove that this is the case. Maybe these buildings were constructed in the different regions. In this case, it is possible that construction site of Alpha company is geographically different from the construction site of Zeta company and because of this difference; remarkable consequences arise out of each of them from some issues especially expenditures. Therefore, more evidences are required to ensure robustness of this claim.

Another problem with the argument is that the author asserts that Zeta costs 30 percent more than that constructed by Alpha. It means, as viewpoint of the author, cost of constructing is the only criteria of the comparison. However, other factors which can be selected as criteria are ignored by the author. Maybe some other factors such as quality of facilities, strength of structural materials, and better interior design have played a prevailing role in this situation. In this case, it is reasonable if Zeta costs are more than Alpha casts.

A third problem with the argument is that the arguer provides no information about when the buildings’ construction were finished. However, as you know, the end time of construction of these buildings has a direct relationship with their benefits and costs. Maybe the Alpha company constructed the building in less time rather than the Zeta Company. In this case, owners of Zeta’s building can sell the building earlier and achieve their own benefits before selling the Alpha’s building. Therefore, the arguer should provide more information regarding years, it may take to be constructed.

In the final analysis, the writer’s conclusion cannot be taken to be correct because, as it was shown in the body paragraphs above, it depends on a number of assumptions each of which is questionable. To bolster it the writer has to provide the difference in regions that these buildings were constructed, all effective factors related to the cost of construction, and amount of years that it may take these buildings be constructed. So, the conclusion can only be accepted if the weakness already referred to are all removed.