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 di

In this memo, it is argued that the vice preseident suggests their company should cooperate with Alpha construction company instead of Zeta for the new building plan. The atuhor cites several evidence to prove the idea. Firstly, there were more expense of the buliding which the Zeta compnay built for the author's company than the Alpha did ten years ago both. Secondly, the mantainance of the building that Zeta constructed was twice as much as that Alpha built. Moreover, the energy consumption of the Zeta buliding was higher than Alpha's annually. Besides, the workforce is comparably stable in Alpha. However, the suggestion is probelmatic in that there are some loopholes in it. Also, more evidence of the background of the two bulidings and companies are needed to evaluate the conclusion. Let's reeaxmine the m carefully. To begin with, the author does not expel the influence of the location which may cause various difference of the restults. As the two bulidings are located in two different places, there may be lots of local conditions different from each other. As the atuhor tells us there were more expense on the buliding erected by Zeta, the author does not tell us whether the other buliding conditions are identical with the Alpha buliding in the other palces. Thus we could not make the conclsuion that the Zeta compnay cost more merely on the construction consumption. As there maybe different price of the buliding materials and laborforces. The atuhor should mak more survey about these expense instead of focusing on the money the afford to the buliding company. Likewise, the more mantainace and energey consumption are not convincing to prove the Zeta company would cost the atuhor's company in that there are other facts except for the bulding company could affect these expense. Also, the atuhor does not show us obvious connections with the fees and the buliding companies. In addtion, the time has passed ten years. While in this statement, the atuhor makes the advice with the pre-incidence that there have been no changes with the wtwo companies for ten years. In fact, whether there some changes taken place in these companies is still in question. So we need more evidence to prove the author's pre-incidence or more data from specific survey. Finally, the author argues that a company with little employee quited is a stable, and the atuhor contends this compnay is better than the companies with lots of employee jumped into other companies. While this assumption is not convicing in that there may be other reasons for the frequent workforce transefer in such companies, as well as the companies with stable workforce. There is a hgih possiblity that with more empolyees in and out, the Alpha company is suprior to the Zeta in that Alpha could recruit more fresh blood who could be more creative and efficient. The Zeta company, on the other hand, could have fewer workers who would not compete with the new employees in Alpha. After all, ten years with less employee turnover, the company could not be a promising one. In conclusion, there are more data and evidence needed to prove the author's suggestion. The vice president should make more survey.