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

The vice president avers that a new building project ought to be given to Zeta company. This statement is buttressed by evidence which should be carefully evaluated in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the conclusion.

To being with, we are told that although both companies had the same floor plans, the building erected by Zeta costs 30 per cent more, at the same time, the costs of maintenance of Alpha's building as well as energy consumption are higher in Alpha's headquarter. Although the author assumes that Zeta's building is more profitable, the likeliness exists that 30 per cent increase in costs of construction of Zeta’s headquarter is significantly bigger than amount of money spent on electricity and maintenance even in a long run. Furthermore, even if we surmise that 30 per cent increase in costs of Zeta's headquarter is negligible; perhaps, the difference in spending on energy and maintenance in both buildings does not connect with the quality of work of the companies. Probably, those buildings were erected in different regions with distinct climate, geographical and weather conditions. In other words, Alpha's building may be located in a Northern State where days are short and winters are severe, as a result, the headquarter has to spend more on the maintenance and electricity than the second one.

Furthermore, even if we take for granted the vice president’s assumption that the building erected by Zeta is better than Alpha's one, we still have a problem because of a considerable time span between two events. In other words, during a ten years span the companies have probably undergone significant changes in technologies used, their management strategies, personnel and equipment. For instance, Zeta used to adhere to an idea that quality is more important than costs this idea may lead to better characteristics of its projects; by contrast, today, a new CEO may have another prospect on the issue. In other words, the usage of obsolete data for making the conclusion is dubious.

Finally, the writer states that new building project ought to be given to Zeta company even though Alpha promises lower construction costs. This conclusion is dubious owing to the fact that Zeta's superiority is not supported properly; Zeta and Alpha probably have dramatically changed since the first project. Moreover, even if author's assumptions are correct, we do not know how much money Alpha’s proposal may save for the company. The likeliness exists that Alpha promises to spend a half of the amount which wants to acquire Zeta. As we know construction of a big headquarter costs a considerable amount of money - tens of millions of dollars. From this viewpoint, we ought to learn initially about the issue more.

In conclusion, the writer believes that new project should be given to Zeta but he or she does not prove his or her position. The information used is obsolete and doubtful. Therefore, the argument is weak and infirm.