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.


In drawing the conclusion that the increased circulation of the Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper, the argument uses the anecdotal evidence that decreasing the paper's price will make its circulation increase and several unfounded assumptions. These unsubstantiated assumptions, along with the flaws in the reasoning, leave the argument less persuasive and weak.
The first questionable assumption stems from assuming that while The Bugle, the competing paper decreased price of its paper, The Mercury lost its readers. This assumption is poorly substantiated, because while the competing paper decreased price, it does not necessarily mean that this leads to the Mercury's loss of its readers. There may be other reasons, ruling out this assumption as just a coincidence. For example, the incorrect management in The Mercury or financial policy may have made the paper less readable.
The second assumption that when The Mercury decreases price of its papers, the more readers will be available hinges on the flawed assertion that is not necessarily true. The decreased price may not attract more readers if the paper's content changed, say, it no longer fits the majority readers' taste, then the efforts to maintain readership through decreased price will fail.
Additionally, the logic that the decreased price will lure more business people to advertise in the paper is weak on the ground that decreased prices may make the businessmen think that the paper is decreasing price to attract more readers and that therefore the paper does not have a substantial amount of readers. Assuming so, the business people may not want to advertise in the paper because of its lack of readers.
The argument, while making several flaws and unsubstantiated assumption in drawing the conclusion remains untruthful and this argument can be in its place substantiated by considering other possible causes of the stated effects and making its assumption bullet-proof.