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 construction companies — Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building’s expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha’s. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Such data indicate that we should use Zeta rather than Alpha for our contemplated new building project, even though Alpha’s bid promises lower construction costs.”

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 construction companies — Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building’s expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha’s. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Such data indicate that we should use Zeta rather than Alpha for our contemplated new building project, even though Alpha’s bid promises lower construction costs.”

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

The vice president of a large, highly diversified corporation makes an argument that his company should build a new facility rather than using a building constructed by another contractor. However, the company in question has already spent millions of dollars on constructing the Alpha building and has seen no decrease in its expenses. The vice president of the company argues that his company should ignore the higher costs of the Zeta building, as lower maintenance expenses and the energy consumption of the Zeta building indicate that the facility should be built there.

The vice president of the company makes a valid point when he states that, in the past, his company has constructed two identical buildings. However, the argument lacks any concrete evidence. To back his claim, he claims that ‘the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction’. He does not provide any evidence for this claim, and since the vice president did not keep official records of the energy consumption of his company, there is no way to corroborate the claim that the building consumed less energy. Furthermore, aside from providing no evidence to support his claim, the vice president fails to provide any evidence for why the company’s expenses were cut in half after the construction of the Zeta building. It is possible that the vice president’s company may have spent less on maintenance because of higher quality maintenance. It is also possible that the building may have cost less to construct in the first place, and that the fact that the building required less maintenance was due to the company’s initial choice of contractor. The vice president of the company fails to mention any of these possibilities, and, as a result, it is left to the reader to speculate about his arguments. This, in my opinion, weakens his argument.

The vice president of the company makes a valid argument when he states that the company should be able to maintain or decrease energy costs in any facility it builds. However, this assumes that the company will construct a new facility. As the company has already spent millions of dollars on constructing the Alpha building, any decrease in the building’s energy costs would be negligible. Furthermore, the company already possess multiple buildings, and the cost of building a new facility would be too high for the company to justify taking on. Therefore, the company should not construct a new facility. If the vice president of the company wishes his company to save on energy costs, he should seek to reduce the company’s energy consumption in its existing facilities. The vice president of the company should first evaluate the current energy consumption of his company’s buildings and identify ways to minimize or eliminate any unnecessary consumption. For example, the company’s buildings could be equipped with more efficient lights, and any areas of the facility that use a lot of energy could be equipped with automatic sensors that detect temperature changes and turn them off when a building becomes too hot or cold. These small changes would drastically reduce the company’s energy consumption, and, as a result, it would save a great deal of money.