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 publisher of The Mercury stated since The Bugle lowered their price, the Mercury's circulation has declined by 10,000 readers in past five years ago. As a result, the best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence it is weak and has several flaws.
First, the publisher assumed that the reduced price will bring back the readers. This assumption is unconvincing. Publisher assumes that The Bugle will not react to the pricing war between two companies. As we know, pricing war between companies is very common in real life. For example, Amazon and Walmart have constantly involved in such competition. At the end, when the price reached the cost, it is really up to the customer to choose where to buy the product. Therefore, the price reduction will not necessarily make more people to read The Mercury.
Second, the publisher failed to address how do business judge on buying advertising space in newspapers. The increased circulation does not necessarily make business buy the advertising space if the price is unaffordable and unreasonable. Although popularity is important, it is certainly not the only thing which business care.
In conclusion, the argument is weak for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the publisher clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information, the argument remains open to debate.
"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 publisher of The Mercury stated since The Bugle lowered their price, the Mercury's circulation has declined by 10,000 readers in past five years ago. As a result, the best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence it is weak and has several flaws.
First, the publisher assumed that the reduced price will bring back the readers. This assumption is unconvincing. Publisher assumes that The Bugle will not react to the pricing war between two companies. As we know, pricing war between companies is very common in real life. For example, Amazon and Walmart have constantly involved in such competition. At the end, when the price reached the cost, it is really up to the customer to choose where to buy the product. Therefore, the price reduction will not necessarily make more people to read The Mercury.
Second, the publisher failed to address how do business judge on buying advertising space in newspapers. The increased circulation does not necessarily make business buy the advertising space if the price is unaffordable and unreasonable. Although popularity is important, it is certainly not the only thing which business care.
In conclusion, the argument is weak for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the publisher clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information, the argument remains open to debate.
