The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large, highly diversified company.
Ten years ago out company had two new office building 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 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.
==============================================================================
正文
In the memo the vice president states that the company should hire Zeta to
construct their new building because one of the company's building built ten
years ago cost less for maintenance and Zeta has a more stable workforce. Although it could be doubtless that Zeta is able to take that job, the vice president should not make the arbitrary decision with such erroneous statement.
The vice president mistakenly assume that the buildings constructed by Alpha and Zeta are place in the regions with same condition. Different region has
different price for labor, material, and even land used for construction. A
building at, let's say, Buffalo, New York, would cost by no way the same as an
identical building at Manhattan, New York City. Thus if the two construction
company switch their working place with each other, building by Zeta could cost more.
Even if the vice president is able to prove that the two regions has similar CPI, indicating that the prices of labor, material, and land do not differentiate significantly to each other, the decision to use Zeta is still groundless
because the information from ten years ago could be outdated. The world,
especially business field, is changing at an incredible speed, a company that
used to dominate its part of business could suddenly bankrupt in a month or
two. that the building by Alpha cost 30 percent more ten years ago does not
necessarily lead to the same scenario today. Hence before put the project into
progress, the vice president should look insightfully how the two companies
would handle the job such as quality, timing, and service, never to mention
that Zeta could suffer from a tremendous loss and claim bankrupt. In that
situation the vice president does not even have the choice.
Finally, the mere fact that building by Zeta cost less for maintained provide with insufficient reason that Zeta should be hired for the new project. As mentioned above, the two region have different conditions that affect the cost to the buildings, the using frequency, business intensity, and geometrical feature such as weather and climate are all critical factors impacting the maintenance cost of the building. It is highly possible that the building by Alpha depreciates, therefore requires the company to put more budgets in this building's maintenance, much faster than that by Zeta owing to busier operation. So maintenance cost could not be counted as an indicator used to judge two construction companies.
In sum, until offering enough and strong evidence that Zeta's performance truly outscores Alpha's and that difference of the nature and business conditions
between the two regions where the old buildings locate are too tiny to be
significant, the vice president's argument is far from flawless.

Although it could be doubtless that Zeta is able to take that job, the vice president should not make the arbitrary decision with such erroneous statement.
Although it is incontrovertible that Zeta is capable to implement the given job, the vice president should not make the arbitrary decision with such erroneous statement.
The vice president mistakenly assume(s) that the(those) buildings(,) constructed by Alpha and Zeta(,) are place(d) in (the) regions with same condition(s). Different region has different price for labor, material, and (even-> redundant) land (used) for construction. A building at(, let's say,=>too casual) Buffalo(, New York,) would impossibly cost (by no way) (the) as same as an identical building at Manhattan, (in) New York City. Thus if (the) two construction company(ies) switch their working place with each other, building by Zeta could (would) cost more.
The vice president mistakenly assumes that those builds were constructed under same conditions. Actually, it is less likely to have equivalent environment especially for fundamental resources such as labor and land. For instance, in a given city such as Buffalo, which located in New York State, to construct a building might cost millions of dollar totally. Unlike in Manhattan, which located in New York City, it will consume the same amount of money only for registering a particular land for construction. Thus, it is too absolute to conclude that Zeta spent less on construction only because their own exquisite performance.
虽然尝试着用高级词汇但是还是不顺手 基本的语法错误很多 第三人称单数 冠词的使用 最严重的还是把口语化的词写到作文里面 想让大吧尝试一下找找下面的语法错误 自己先进行修改:p

冠词：
特指的时候用 the
泛指的时候用 a/an
多数在名词复数的时候不加冠词 除非特指
THE TWO REIGIONS HAS 就是一个非常典型的结合各种错误的例子
注意词组的搭配 e.g.differentiate between a and b

Even if the vice president is able to prove that the
two regions has(have) similar CPI, indicating that the prices of labor,
material, and land do not differentiate significantly to(between) each other,
the decision to (of) use(ing) Zeta is still groundless(change! that’s
not the only word you can use) because the information from ten years ago could(can) be outdated. The world, especially (in) business field, is changing at
an incredible speed, a company that used to dominate its part of
business (can you explain to me what does it mean by “its part”) could suddenly
bankrupt (it is a status which cannot keep for a month. also bankrupt is an
adjective, bankruptcy is what you are looking for I guess. “file for bankruptcy”) in a month (or two). (that) ten years ago, the building (constructed) by
Alpha cost 30 percent more (than…) does not necessarily lead to the same
scenario today. Hence before put the project into progress, the vice
president should look insightfully how (the) would two companies handle (on)
the job’s (such as) quality, timing, and service, never to mention that
Zeta could suffer from a tremendous loss and claim bankrupt(cy).(I don’t see the
causality of Zeta, filing bankruptcy and not treating job seriously, need
context ) In that situation the vice president does not (even) have the
(a) choice.

就要到7月了 虽然不知道大吧具体哪天考 但是请一定加油！！！！！争取这是人生最后一次参加ETS考试！！！！！有任何问题请及时来讨论！！！虽然也不见得我能帮上什么忙 但是祝一切顺利！！！！！！！！