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

In this memo, the author argues that the company should use Zeta rather Alpha for their new building project even though Alpha is cheaper. Although this argument may seem convincing at first glance, the lack of evidence leads me to question its validity.

First, the author needs to provide more solid evidence on the initial conditions of the buildings built by Zeta and Alpha. The author admits that the building established by Zeta costs 30% more than Alpha but hastily dismiss the disadvantage of Zeta. However, with this fact, we can state that Zeta should not be preferred over Alpha. Also, it is plausible that the low maintenance costs of Zeta were prevalent only for just one year. The low cost of Zeta may be an aberration, and such success cannot be applied to the next decade.

Second, the author needs to supplement the argument with more concrete information on the initial energy consumption of the two buildings. The author states that Zeta overrides Alpha because the energy consumption of the Zeta’s building was half that of Alpha’s building. However, it is possible that the Zeta’s building is composed of a marginal number of workers and their working hours are much shorter, thus yielding the lower energy consumption. Even if the number of workers and working hours are similar, it is possible that the energy consumption of Zeta is lower by only a negligible amount. In such case, the low consumption cannot be considered as a significant advantage.

Lastly, more specific evidence is needed on the soundness of the conclusion that the company should use Zeta rather than Alpha despite Alpha’s low costs. In all likelihood, a myriad of people would prefer affordable costs over good quality. In particular, if the difference of quality of Zeta and Alpha is marginal but the difference of the costs is substantial, it may be a better option to opt for (select) Alpha’s low construction costs.

In summary, the author’s claim is unconvincing on many grounds. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to provide all the evidence mentioned above.