Hello folks,
This is my first shot at AOA. Please go thorugh and let me know the flaws and the areas where I can improve. I am scheduled to take the test in early Sept.
The following appeared in an announcement issued by the publisher of The Mercury, a weekly newspaper:
"Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury's circulation has
declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Analysis:
The publisher believes that an increased circulation of The Mercury would result in more businesses buying advertising space in the paper and the way to achieve increased sales is to compete with The Bugle on pricing. However, there are some serious flaws in the argument and the basic assumptions used to come at this conclusion.
Firstly, the publisher states that The Mercury's circulation has declined by 10,000 readers and points to its competition, The Bugle, as the reason. However, the statistics presented only augments one side of the argument. For instance, the decline in the number of readers could have been triggered due to the increased popularity of online newspapers or television news channels. This argument could have been further strengthened if the publisher had presented the distribution statistics for The Bugle over the last 5 years.
Secondly, the publisher assumes that the reason for the decline in the number of readers for The Mercury is solely due to its price. In arriving at this conclusion, the publisher does not take into consideration a comparison on the quantity and the quality of the contents in both the newspapers. The drop in sales of The Mercury could well have been due to superior news coverage or more content which is in sync with the readers' interests offered by The Bugle. If the problem is indeed with the content, then reducing the price might only prove to be a temporary solution, if this can be considered a solution at all, since the readers would tend to switch back to The Bugle when the price is brought back to the current state.
Another flaw in the argument is that the publisher does not present the statistics which presents the medium of advertising used by businesses in the area. If the businesses in that locality depend more on electronic media such as television channels and internet or more on direct marketing, then an increase in sales might not directly point to an increased demands for the advertising space in the paper.
To conclude the publisher fails to provide definitive arguments and statistical figures which would strengthen the proposed plan to increase the sales. The argument also fails to support itself with critical statistics which shows that an increase in sales, if any, would definitely mean an increased demand for advertising space.
This is my first shot at AOA. Please go thorugh and let me know the flaws and the areas where I can improve. I am scheduled to take the test in early Sept.
The following appeared in an announcement issued by the publisher of The Mercury, a weekly newspaper:
"Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury's circulation has
declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Analysis:
The publisher believes that an increased circulation of The Mercury would result in more businesses buying advertising space in the paper and the way to achieve increased sales is to compete with The Bugle on pricing. However, there are some serious flaws in the argument and the basic assumptions used to come at this conclusion.
Firstly, the publisher states that The Mercury's circulation has declined by 10,000 readers and points to its competition, The Bugle, as the reason. However, the statistics presented only augments one side of the argument. For instance, the decline in the number of readers could have been triggered due to the increased popularity of online newspapers or television news channels. This argument could have been further strengthened if the publisher had presented the distribution statistics for The Bugle over the last 5 years.
Secondly, the publisher assumes that the reason for the decline in the number of readers for The Mercury is solely due to its price. In arriving at this conclusion, the publisher does not take into consideration a comparison on the quantity and the quality of the contents in both the newspapers. The drop in sales of The Mercury could well have been due to superior news coverage or more content which is in sync with the readers' interests offered by The Bugle. If the problem is indeed with the content, then reducing the price might only prove to be a temporary solution, if this can be considered a solution at all, since the readers would tend to switch back to The Bugle when the price is brought back to the current state.
Another flaw in the argument is that the publisher does not present the statistics which presents the medium of advertising used by businesses in the area. If the businesses in that locality depend more on electronic media such as television channels and internet or more on direct marketing, then an increase in sales might not directly point to an increased demands for the advertising space in the paper.
To conclude the publisher fails to provide definitive arguments and statistical figures which would strengthen the proposed plan to increase the sales. The argument also fails to support itself with critical statistics which shows that an increase in sales, if any, would definitely mean an increased demand for advertising space.
