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

This memorandum story concludes that, there are 2 different headquarters were constructed from two different companies, Alpha and Zeta Companies, in two different regions ten years ago. Their floor plans are identical, but Zeta's construction cost was 30 percent more to build than Alpha. However, Zeta's building expenses for maintenance last year were only half of the Alpha's building, and also Zeta's energy consumption has been lower every year than Alpha's construction. As a result of this, the author recommend that they should use Zeta construction even their bid is higher than Alpha construction. However, his assumptions stand on very weak information, to decide whether his recommendation is reasonable or not, we need more information.

At first impression it would seem that, those 2 buildings were constructed 10 years ago, the author gave only that time's information. However we did not know the construction price are still understandable for Zeta construction. Even so, Zeta's high bid was accepted ten years ago because of its low cost maintenance and less energy consumption. Still those expenditures and building cost are balanced each other? We are not able to find this answer.

On the other hand,these two regions are truly analogous to each other? Maybe Zeta's building in Florida, however maybe Alpha's building is in New York, As a result of the cities' expensiveness these construction prices, maintenance costs, energy consumption will be variable. The author should find out what is the similarities of this two region other than its identical floor plans we need more resemblances examples. For instance, are they in same height, how many floors both have, how many people work in there? All this information may change our decision.

Moreover, the statement shows only last year's maintenance expenses, how about the other years? Is zeta's building has always lower maintenance expense, or only for last year? The author should inquire other years maintenance expenses to recommend us more accurate information.

Finally, the author claimed that, Zeta construction has a stable workforce with little employee turnover. Actually, little employee turnover make Zeta construction is a wrong choice. Yet companies may want their new buildings finished earlier. However with these little employee numbers may make the companies decision turn off for Zeta Construction. Moreover, they may request from Vice president how about the Alpha construction's work force? How many employees Alpha have? The author should find these information before giving any recommendations.

In conclusion, the argument fails to give recent information. His biased ideas only focus on Zeta construction. As a result of this, he has insufficient information about Alpha's construction which made a vague recommendation for company. If he will find out these answers, his recommendations will be more accurate for company.