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 construction c

According to the reading passage, it is recommending Zeta over Alpha for the company’s new building project. However, in order to evaluate the recommendation and the argument, several questions have to be answered.

Firstly, do the areas where the two buildings built by Alpha and Zeta show similar weather conditions? Perhaps the region where Zeta constructed the building is cooler in summer compared to the region where Alpha constructed the building. If then, during the summer season, the Alpha building has to use air conditioners more often than the Zeta building, as result, the former consumes more energy than the latter. Thus, if the weather conditions of those areas where buildings are constructed are different, the energy consumption might be irrelevant to the choice of construction firms, and the argument cannot hold water.

Secondly, do the buildings constructed by two companies – Alpha and Zeta – use the same maintenance services? In general, construction companies do not manage every part of maintenance, so the company might have contracted with maintenance firms. Due to the regional distances, the company may utilize different maintenance services with different service fees for two buildings. If then, the maintenance cost is related to the maintenance services, not the selection of either Alpha or Zeta, so it undermines the given argument.

Thirdly, are the two buildings made with the same materials? Although they had the same floor plans, the basic materials used in building construction might be different. When constructing a building, different materials are utilized depending on the region's average temperature, raining frequency, and other factors. If different materials were used in the buildings, the construction cost differences can be due to different material costs rather than the firms, Alpha or Zeta. Hence, if the answer to the question is no, the argument is weakened.

To sum up, the recommendation and the argument, as it stands now, are considerably flawed due to their reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the vice president fails to properly answer the mentioned questions properly, the memo cannot be persuasive.