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.
The argument claims that since the lower-priced newspaper "The Bugle" started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10,000 readers, and that the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to the former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper is relied on the assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the low-priced newspaper "The Bugle" is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are other reasons for decline in the readership, namely, the quality of the content of newspaper is not good enough to fetch more readers, the news in the paper is old and the topic of editorial is not convincing, and the bad language of the newspaper. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of "the Mercury" should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. Newspaper "The Guardian" with even a higher price tag, has the readership more than any other news paper has. In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel that how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provided link between the lower price and increase in readers, then he would have sounded a bit more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that increasing the circulation of the Mercury will automatically attract more businesses to buy space in the newspaper for advertisement. From this statement again, it is not clear that how the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy more space in the newspaper. Without supporting evidences, and examples from other newspapers, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantiated evidence. As a result, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.
"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.
The argument claims that since the lower-priced newspaper "The Bugle" started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10,000 readers, and that the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to the former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper is relied on the assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the low-priced newspaper "The Bugle" is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are other reasons for decline in the readership, namely, the quality of the content of newspaper is not good enough to fetch more readers, the news in the paper is old and the topic of editorial is not convincing, and the bad language of the newspaper. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of "the Mercury" should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. Newspaper "The Guardian" with even a higher price tag, has the readership more than any other news paper has. In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel that how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provided link between the lower price and increase in readers, then he would have sounded a bit more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that increasing the circulation of the Mercury will automatically attract more businesses to buy space in the newspaper for advertisement. From this statement again, it is not clear that how the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy more space in the newspaper. Without supporting evidences, and examples from other newspapers, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantiated evidence. As a result, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.
