Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two different regions. The buildings were erected by two different construction companies Alpha and Zeta. Even though the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build, and its expenses for maintenance last year were twice those of the building constructed by Alpha. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been higher than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Such data, plus the fact that Alpha has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, indicate that we should use Alpha rather than Zeta for our contemplated new building project.
The author of this memo cites some benefits of Alpha Company such as expenses for maintenance, energy consumption, and stable workforce. He suggests that for new project, the company use the Alpha rather than Zeta since it is beneficial. The close scrutiny of this memo reveals that all mentioned assumptions are based on some questionable propositions.
First of all, the argument relies on unfair assumption that the building constructed by the Zeta cost thirty percent more than that building constructed by the Alpha, and also its expenses for maintenance last year were twice those of Alpha. The writer overlooks the possibility that the facilities included in the Zeta building. It is plausible to consider that luxurious and facilities like bath and kitchen in the Zeta have a high price and high quality. As for the point about expenses for maintenance, the arguer fails to see that more expenses are associated to geographical region of zeta which needs more monetary source and material to be empowered. To bolster this statement, the author should provide more information about facilities, geographical region and other equipment in both of Alpha building and Zeta building to make a clear picture about efficiency of both buildings.
Secondly, the author imparts that energy consumption in the zeta building is more than that of alpha building. The author fails to consider other alternative explanation for this case. Perhaps because of some affecting factors in the Zeta building energy consumption is higher than Alpha Company. For example, the Zeta is located in a region with harsh climate which needs more energy consumption in the all seasons. Or perhaps the Zeta residents consume more energy than Alpha building since they need more energy more daily activities and their workers. Without ruling out some other alternative explanation the author cannot justify his claim about efficiency of Alpha Company.
Thirdly, the arguer establishes his claim on this assumption that the Alpha building has a stable workforce with little employee turnover. Then he suggests that the new project be constructed by the Alpha Company to gain more efficiency. The author fails to see some other factors affecting this point since little employee turnover and stable workforce do not necessarily mean that the Alpha company is better than Zeta company. it is possible that type of work in both buildings are different and employee need more vacation and rest in Zeta building since it has a higher height than that of Alpha company. or perhaps working in Zeta is harder than working in Alpha company.
All in all, based on doubtful assumptions and poor evidence, the author' reasoning does not provide concrete support for his conclusion. Had these details been mentioned along with supporting evidence, it would have been more convincing and through to strengthen this argument. The author should provide more information discussed above maybe by a local study or survey to make a lucid description.
- A recent national survey found that the majority of workers with access to the Internet at work had used company computers for personal or recreational activities, such as banking or playing games. In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we s 40
- decline in fish species 70
- fossil of dinosaur 70
- more cars in streets 70
- purpose of stone balls in the ancient time 70
Comments
The following argument is…
The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that Alpha construction company is more efficient than Zeta, thereby rendering the main conclusion that Alpha, rather than Zeta should be contracted for the contemplated new building project invalid,
Firstly, the argument is based on the premise that the Zeta building costs 30% more than the Alpha building, and that the expenses for its maintenance cost more than double that for the Alpha building in the last year. This assumption does not take into consideration that both construction companies are located at different regions, and so, the price and quality of equipment of the materials used may differ. Also, situated in different regions, the land and terrain may differ, such that the Zeta building might be in a swampy area, and therefore requires more equipment and building materials to ensure that the integrity of the building is not compromised. Also, the floor plan being similar does not infer that the buildings will be constructed using the same materials. If a comparison between between the buildings is carried out, the basis for this assumption may be rendered invalid,
This argument also leaves many other unanswered questions as regarding the energy consumption of both buildings. There are many reasons why the Zeta building consumes more energy compared to the Alpha building. One of such reasons may be that there are more employees in the Zeta building, therefore, more work is done, leading to the expenditure of more energy compared to the Alpha building. Also, the Zeta building may be located in a more temperate region, requiring the use of cooling systems such as the air conditioner, which may not be needed in the Alpha building. Investigation into the reason for the consumption of more energy will give more perspective to the assumption, and may render it baseless.
Finally, the argument claims without warrant that Alpha has a stable work force with little employee turnover, and therefore, is more reliable than Zeta. The data or information used to come to this conclusion needs to be examined thoroughly to ensure that the basis for the conclusion is fair. Zeta may have a structure that allows for frequent vacations to be taken by their employees, hence that instability of their workforce. it could also be that Zeta allows their competent and experienced employees to set up their own businesses after a while. so as to be able to train and employ more people. If these reasons are taken into consideration, the initial assumption will be rendered false.
Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that Alpha should be contracted for the contemplated new building project.
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly: since it has a higher height than that of Alpha company....
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 483 350
No. of Characters: 2483 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.688 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.141 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.623 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.15 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.734 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.35 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.373 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.577 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.13 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5