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 different regions. The buildings were erected by two differe

The originator of the memo asserts that new project ought to be given to Alpha construction company. This statement is based on evidence which is connected with the conclusion by several assumptions which should be carefully scrutinized in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the argument.

Firstly, perhaps, the most glaring assumption which was made by the vice president is that the results which were acquired ten years ago may be extrapolated on today's situation. Probably, those companies have changed their policies, management, equipment, personnel and technologies during this long period of time, therefore, usage of obsolete data to make a conclusion is highly questionable.

Secondly, we are told that two headquarters were constructed with the usage of the same floor plan, nevertheless the building erected by Zeta cost 30 per cent more. Although the author surmises that it is Zeta’s inefficiency, those buildings were erected in different regions, perhaps, those regions have distinct climate, weather conditions and other characteristics. For instance, the headquarter built by Zeta may be located in a Northern region with severe climate, moreover, the region may have no good transport infrastructure as well. By contrast, Alpha's building may be erected in Southern state with decent infrastructure. In this case, Zeta had to make better insulation and thus spend more money on material and transportation than Alpha and it increase the costs.

Thirdly, we are told that Zeta's building consumes more electricity than Alpha's headquarter. The vice president assumes that quality of work of Zeta is the reason of it. However, some unstated reasons may lead to this result, for instance, Zeta's building may be more used than Alpha's one, additionally to it, as we said above, Zeta's building may be located in a northern state where days are short and evenings are dark and long. Perhaps, the region may be colder as well. In this case, people may use additional electricity to light the working offices and maintain comfortable temperature.

Fourthly, we also know that the last year, Zeta' building requires much more money on maintenance. The vice president believes that this is a repeated pattern which point on Zeta’s incompetence. However, the likeliness exists that both buildings have the same spending on maintenance overall but Alpha's headquarter makes regular and even allocations of money on maintenance, by contrast, Zeta's building may heavily spend money once in a long period of time. In this case, the expenditures may be the same. Moreover, Zeta's headquarter may have to undergo an update and thus it has to spend heavily on it. At the same time, Alpha's building may undergo the same procedure before or after the Alpha.

Finally, the writer claims that Alpha has a stable workforce with little employee turnover. However, does this fact automatically mean that Alpha has better staff with better qualification? Perhaps, the answer on this question is "no" they may have no incentive to work hard because they know that they will not be fired. In other words, the stable workforce does not guarantee Alpha's superiority over Zeta

In conclusion, the author's conclusion is based on the weak evidence which cannot create a strong support for his or her position and thus the argument is infirm and unwarranted.