ARGUMENT 70

In this letter, the vice president of a large company recommends using Zeta instead of Alpha for their newly proposed building project. The vice president insists  that Zeta is a better choice despite Alpha's more competitive bid because of buildings Alpha and Zeta constructed ten years previously. Although Zeta's construction costs were higher tha Alpha's, its building's maintenance costs and energy consumption have been lower than those of the Alpha-constructed building. Moreover, the vice president cites Zeta's stable workforce and low turnover rate in hopes of proving Zeta's competency. Although this argument may seem quite convincing at first glance, the vice president does not conclusively justify his/her endorcement of Zeta. More evidence is needed in order to fully assess the vice president's recommendation.

 

To begin with, more information about maintainance costs and energy consumption of the two buildings is needed.This is because the vice president implies that the difference in maintenance costs and energy consumption is due to Zeta and Alpha's work quality. This could be wrong, however, because environmental factors can also effect both maintenance costs and energy comsumption. For example, the building Alpha erected may be located in a region with a cold, harsh climate and frequent extreme weather , which would result in  higher maintenance costs due to weather damage and  more expensive energy bills due to higher heating demands. If the evidence suggests this, the vice president's argument will be considerably weakened. On the other hand, if evidence indicates a close similarity between the two regions in terms of natural conditions, the vice president's comparison is more reasonable.

 

Even if higher maintenance costs and energy consumption are the direct result of Alpha's construction, it is unclear whether the Alpha-constructed building's costs are higher than the building erected by Zeta. By the total cost, I refer to the  sum of construction costs and subsequent operation costs. The vice president mentions that the Zeta building's construction costs were higher so it is possible that Zeta's building was more expensive in terms of total cost. However, a lack of quantified information prevents detailed evaluation. We certainly need the exact construction costs and operation figures over the past ten years to determine which company actually offers a better economical solution.

 

What is more, even if the Zeta building's overall cost is lower than the Alpha building's, whether or not Zeta should win the contrast remains questionable because cost should not be the only factor considered. Besides cost, factors such as building quality, safty standards and speediness of construction ought to be taken into consideration. If Zeta's building, though cheaper, is very shabby or contains high levels of toxic materials which pose a serious health threat to its inhabitants, it would be dangerous to give Zeta the project. On the contrary, a report from a certified independent quality-control agency endorsing the Zeta building's overall quality would certainly boost the vice president's recommendation.

 

Additionally, the author mentions that Zeta has low employee turnover and thus has a more stable workforce. However, it is not clear whether a company's workforce stability is equivalent to its service quality. Alpha's allergedly higher turnover rate ( though this has not yet been established) could result from strong intra-company competition which results in the dismissal of underperforming employees.  In this case, Zeta's superiority over Alpha is hardly proven. Feedback from the two company's previous clients regarding employee performance would allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the true quality of each company's employees.

 

In conclusion, more evidence is needed.