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

Essay topics:

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 companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Such data indicate that we should use Zeta rather than Alpha for our contemplated new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs."

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

The vice president of a large highly diversified company recommends using Zeta Company rather than Alpha for erection of new building project. This statement is based on evidence which ought to be carefully scrutinized in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the conclusion.

The first evidence which is given to us is that despite the identical floor plans the costs of construction by Zeta was 30 per cent higher than these of Alpha, at the same time, the headquarter erected by Alpha consumes more electricity and last year expenditures for maintenance were significantly higher than ones of Zeta's building. However, if we compare the 30 per cent of money spent on construction by Zeta and costs for maintenance and electricity, we may figure out that the first amount will dramatically outweigh the expenses on electricity and maintenance. Consequently, this author's evidence is dubious.

Furthermore, the writer uses two examples to make a judgment about all projects of these two construction companies. These two buildings cannot possibly represent a real situation due to the fact that they were built in different regions and perhaps climate and weather conditions. The probability exists that this example is rather aberration than paragon which represent real situation and comparing of other companies' projects may display an opposing results. The writer might have made the argument stronger had he given us more statistical data about other projects of these companies which for instance were erected in similar conditions, region and with usage of similar floor plans. Till we are not given this data, we cannot accept this evidence.

Finally, the writer makes an unreasonable extrapolation of ten years example on today's project. Even if Zeta company used to have some advantages over Alpha, they might have been lost today. For example, these companies may have new CEO's, companies' policies, strategies, equipment and employees. In other words, the conditions of today probably do not similar ones of the past and therefore the usage of obsolete data is irrelevant.

In conclusion, from our viewpoint, arguer's conclusion to give new project to Zeta rather than Alpha whether or not Alpha promises lower construction costs is questionable. The writer's evidence is weak and irrelevant to the argument; as a result, the author’s suggestion is unwarranted. Additionally to it, the writer tends to neglect the fact that promised lower construction costs may be significant thus author's hasty decision is unreasonable and more information is needed to give a comprehensive estimation of the Alpha's proposal.

Votes
Average: 4 (2 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2019-09-13 inessad 61 view
2019-08-10 Shivgovind 63 view
2019-07-11 atreya98 34 view
2019-02-28 evanlu 55 view
2018-11-29 nabi 55 view
>>> More users practiced this topic >>>
Essay Categories
GMAT/GRE Argument Task
Essays by user DubinchukEugene :
>>> more essays by the user >>>

Comments

probably do not similar ones of the past
probably are not similar to the ones of the past

argument 1 -- not OK. The construction fee is for one time, while the maintenance fee is for every year with more times.

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- not OK. Need to argue against the conclusion. For this topic it is:

Such data indicate that we should use Zeta rather than Alpha for our contemplated new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs.
--------------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 417 350
No. of Characters: 2193 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.519 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.259 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.933 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.529 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.848 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.107 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5

Hello my reader. I strangely cannot comprehend this prompt. I hope with your help to naild it. Let's analyze the structure and argue accordingly.

The stracture of the prompt is:

Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions. The buildings were erected by different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta.

Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. //perhaps these headquarters are located in different regions and Zeta’ excessing of budget was caused by remote located from road and ports, it may use different material for instance because the area is prone to earthquakes etc.//

However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. //building maintenance expenditures may be aberration rather than routine, for instance, building were reequipped with new safer of faster lift, security systems or local governor simply demand to repaint the premises. Or this headquarter undergoes one big repair one in five year(this is fifth year) when Alpha do regular repair. Electricity expenses may be explainted by location close to pole thus relatively small amount of sunlight or this building exploited heavier than Zeta’s one //

Such data indicate that we should use Zeta rather than Alpha for our contemplated new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs." Thus it is not obvious that this project ought to be given to Zeta. + a ten-year span does not allow writer to extrapolate the data.

This is my first essay. It has the structure which I wrote above.

http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-appeared-…

Please help to understand what is wrong with it. It seems to be so simple. Wait for your answer.

Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. //First, it is only for last year, how about other years? second, the building's expenses for maintenance may be related to management for example, so it can't mean something.

Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. //your argument 2

Such data indicate that we should use Zeta rather than Alpha for our contemplated new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs. //first, the sample is not big enough and it is for 10 years ago, bigger samples may give better arguments; second, suppose the difference for construction fee is huge while the difference for maintenance fee and energy consumption between two buildings is little, it can't say Zeta is better (suppose two regions have same conditions: weather; salary for workers...); third, Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs; it is still a advantage we can't ignore. etc...