GMAT Essays (AWA)

Argument:
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."

Analysis:

The argument states that a lower priced newspaper "The Bugle" started five years ago, which has declined the circulation of "The Mercury" by 10,000 readers. According to the author, by reducing the price of The Mercury below that of the bugle will result in increase in circulation. In the preceding statement the author claims that" The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper." Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue in author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The bugle cannot be necessarily blamed for the decline in Mercury's readers, for eg: people may prefer other modes of advertising for news i.e. Televisions, radios, magazines etc. Moreover, it is possible that people buying mercury have shifted to other newspapers and not The Bugle. Also, people may not prefer to read mercury even after the prices decrease, people may still prefer the other means of media as they may be cheaper etc. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.

In, addition the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that the lost 10,000 readers have started reading the bugle but the case may be different as some may have shifted to the bugle but other's may prefer televisions, magazines etc. as a source for daily news. Also, it is assumed by the author that by decreasing the price the circulation will atleast become stable, instead the case may be different as people may not necessarily like The Mercury for eg: the sports column of other newspapers may be accurate as compared to The mercury and people who are interested in sports may therefore prefer those newspapers etc. Furthermore, the increased circulation may not attract businesses, for instance, businesses may prefer to advertise on television as it is faster source of information as compared to newspapers. The author weakens his argument by failing to provide the explication of links between only two newspapers i.e. "The Bugle" and "The Mercury" he assumes exists.

While the author does have some key issues with the argument, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author can provide more examples to support his argument. He can mention the reason as to why decreasing the price may result in increased circulation. Also, he can compare not only with The Bugle but also with other newspapers which would help him to understand the level of competition. He can also introduce do some survey with his old customers as to why did they stopped reading The Mercury etc. Though there is several issues with author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification he could improve his argument significantly.

In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render is conclusion invalid. The author can provide more support to his argument by giving more examples and not considering "The Bugle" as the only competitor which has decreased his customers. The author can also find other forms of attracting business which may pull more customers because of advertisements. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind on the issue he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.