GRE argument essay: Should a company use Alpha or Zeta?

[Roytor]

[u]“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. In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha’s bid promises lower construction costs.”

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.[/u]

While it may seem logical at first glance that Zeta performance on construction might lead to the long term cost saving compared to Alpha. However, the statement contains several flaw that need to be clarified in order to confirm that new building project should use Zeta rather than Alpha. 

First of all, as mentioned in the statement that both buildings were constructed in the different regions, many conditions of the construction and operating can be different. Therefore, the statement should mention about where both of the buildings is located. With this information provided, the building from both construction firms can be more fairly evaluated. For example, in the different region, the weather condition can be different which eventually lead to the energy consumption of the building.

Another reason is that the statement should indicate how each building has been used. As mentioned in the statement that the maintenance cost of Zeta’s building is 50% lower than Alpha’s. However, as there is no information on the building usage, the evaluation cannot be easily performed. For instant, if the Alpha’s building usage last year was twice of the Zeta’s one, the amount of maintenance expense of Alpha’s building should larger than the one of Zeta.

Finally, the amount of expense should be unequivocally identified in the statement. The statement mentioned that Alpha’s building costs more in maintenance and energy consumption cost and the Zeta’s building costs more in the construction cost. However, it is impossible to compare, and making the business decision without knowing the exact value of each cost. If the maintenance cost is a very small proportion compared with the construction cost, using Zeta to construct the building might not be the appropriate decision.

In conclusion, the statement recommending Zeta to constructs the building rather than Alpha cannot be fully evaluated for several reasons. The difference in region can have different weather condition which affect in different energy consumption. Different building usage can eventually result in different maintenance cost. The exact value of each cost should be stated clearly in order to compare the amount before making the decision.

[Beeesneees]

TITLE EDITED.
Please help everyone to make the most of this forum and its resources by giving your threads meaningful and relevant subject lines.

[Luschen]

Hi Roytor, welcome to the forum. I think your content here is pretty good, but you have a lot of small errors in grammar. Parts of your essay also sound very repetitive and your vocabulary seems a little limited. Please see my comments below.

@Roytor

[u]“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. In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha’s bid promises lower construction costs.”

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.[/u]

While it may seem logical at first glance that Zeta['s] performance [ i]n construction might lead to [s]the[/s] [a] long term cost saving compared to Alpha. {this is not a complete sentence} However, the statement contains several flaw[s ] {it is not really the statement that contains flaws, but there are possible flaws in the argument}  that need to be clarified in order to confirm that [the] new building project should use Zeta rather than Alpha. 

First of all, as mentioned in the statement[,][s] that[/s] both buildings were constructed in [s]the[/s] different regions, [so] many conditions of the construction and operati[on] can be different. Therefore, the statement should mention [s]about[/s][specifically] where both of the buildings [s]is[/s][are] located. With this information provided, the building[s ] from both{"each .. firm" is better here} construction firms can be more fairly evaluated. For example, in the different region[s ], the weather condition[s ] can be different[,] which eventually lead to [variations in] the energy consumption of the building.{also, raw materials and labor costs that go into the construction might vary widely from region to region}

Another reason {"another reason" is a little vague - reason for what?} is that the statement should indicate how each building has been used. As mentioned in the statement[,] {this phrase is repetitive} [s]that[/s] the maintenance cost of Zeta’s building is 50% lower than Alpha’s. However, as there is no information on{"regarding" sounds better than "on" here}  the building usage, the evaluation cannot be easily performed. For instan[ce], if the Alpha’s building usage {what exactly is "usage"?  this is a little vague to me} last year was twice [that] of the Zeta’s one, the amount of maintenance expense of Alpha’s building should larger than the one of Zeta.{"than that of Zeta" sounds better} 

Finally, the amount of expense should be unequivocally identified in the statement. The statement mentioned that Alpha’s building costs more in maintenance and energy consumption [s]cost[/s] and the Zeta’s building costs more in the construction [s]cost[/s]. However, it is impossible to compare, and making the business decision without knowing the exact value of each cost [is like shooting in the dark] {or another suitable predicate}. If the maintenance cost is a very small proportion compared with the construction cost, using Zeta to construct the building might not be the appropriate decision.

In conclusion, the statement recommending [that] Zeta [s]to [/s]constructs the building rather than Alpha cannot be fully evaluated for several reasons. The difference in region[s ] can [s]have[/s] [result in] different weather condition[s,] which [s]affect[/s][result] in different energy consumption. Different building usage can eventually result in different maintenance cost. The exact value of each cost should be stated clearly in order to compare the amount[s ] before making the decision.

[Roytor]

Hi Luschen,

Many thanks! It’s been a while after your reviewed of my TOEFL writing (may be a year). With your help checking my essay, my TOEFL score was pretty alright.
I am taking the GRE test soon and might need your help again. Thank you in advance