-
mehravikas
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 23 times
- Followed by:1 members
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 author concludes that since the lower priced newspaper, The Bugle, started five years ago, The Mercury's circulation has declined sharply. The author's line of reasoning is that the best way to get people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of another newspaper The Bugle, and the increased circulation of the "The Mercury", to its former levels, will attract more businesses to buy advertising space. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
First of all, the author's line of reasoning the reduction in the price of the newspaper The Mercury will help to increase the circulation to its former levels depends on a questionable assumption that the only reason people switched to The Bugle was its low price. On the contrary, it seems quite reasonable to assume that people were not happy with the content of the news that was published in The Mercury. If this were so, the reduction in the price of The Mercury will not achieve its desired result. The author's argument should be backed by solid evidence, for example, people might not be satisfied with the service of The Mercury, or The Mercury might have been compromising on the amount of news because of the advertising. Because the author's argument lacks solid evidence to prove the decline in the sales of The Mercury, it is impossible to assess the persuasiveness of the argument.
Secondly, the author assumes that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper. Again no evidence is given to support this assumption. The author needs to provide solid evidence that businesses are not willing to advertise in The Mercury because of reduction in sales. Admittedly, if The Bugle, has offered down to earth prices to the businesses, The Mercury will not be able to get the businesses even if The Mercury sales increase to its former level.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. The author has to provide solid evidence to prove that price is the only that has caused a decline in sales of The Mercury newspaper. Without this evidence the argument lacks several key issues that could make the argument more thorough and convincing.
"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 author concludes that since the lower priced newspaper, The Bugle, started five years ago, The Mercury's circulation has declined sharply. The author's line of reasoning is that the best way to get people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of another newspaper The Bugle, and the increased circulation of the "The Mercury", to its former levels, will attract more businesses to buy advertising space. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
First of all, the author's line of reasoning the reduction in the price of the newspaper The Mercury will help to increase the circulation to its former levels depends on a questionable assumption that the only reason people switched to The Bugle was its low price. On the contrary, it seems quite reasonable to assume that people were not happy with the content of the news that was published in The Mercury. If this were so, the reduction in the price of The Mercury will not achieve its desired result. The author's argument should be backed by solid evidence, for example, people might not be satisfied with the service of The Mercury, or The Mercury might have been compromising on the amount of news because of the advertising. Because the author's argument lacks solid evidence to prove the decline in the sales of The Mercury, it is impossible to assess the persuasiveness of the argument.
Secondly, the author assumes that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper. Again no evidence is given to support this assumption. The author needs to provide solid evidence that businesses are not willing to advertise in The Mercury because of reduction in sales. Admittedly, if The Bugle, has offered down to earth prices to the businesses, The Mercury will not be able to get the businesses even if The Mercury sales increase to its former level.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. The author has to provide solid evidence to prove that price is the only that has caused a decline in sales of The Mercury newspaper. Without this evidence the argument lacks several key issues that could make the argument more thorough and convincing.
