Rate my essay-- Analysis of an Argument (AWA)

This topic has expert replies

How do you rate my essay?

1
0
No votes
2
0
No votes
3
0
No votes
4
0
No votes
5
0
No votes
6
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 0

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 2:34 am
Kindly Rate my essay


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."


The argument infers that increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the newspaper. However, to make this conclusion, the argument makes numerous unsubstantiated assumptions and fails to identify the root cause of the problem, which the newspaper is facing. Hence, the argument, in its current form, seems weak and flawed.

First, the argument states that since, a competing low-priced newspaper, The Bugle, has come into the market, The Mercury has lost its readers. However, the argument here assumes, without any evidence, that the loss in readership is an effect of a cheaper option available in the market. But, there can be numerous reasons for a declined audience. For example, the newspaper's content may not be at par with the other available options, or the newspaper may have offered a better discount scheme in the past owing to which people might have opted for the newspaper during the scheme period. The argument, here, fails to analyze other circumstances and does not provide any additional data or evidence to support its assumption. Hence, the argument's assumption that the loss in readers is due a low-priced alternative is not justified.

Second, the argument states that The Mercury should reduce its prices until it re-establishes its circulation. However, it makes an assumption here. The argument assumes that once the circulation is brought back to its former level, the circulation will sustain. However, the argument's assumption is unsubstantiated. If the actual cause of the decline in readership were the higher prices of the newspaper, then the readers will opt-out of the newspaper's subscription as soon as the prices are increased, and hence, the argument's assumption fails in such a scenario. In scenarios where the root cause of the problem is not the price, but the content, the argument's assumption that a drop in prices will bring back the readers will fail again. Hence, without providing underlining proof that substantiates the root cause of the problem, the argument's claim remains weak.

Third, the argument assumes that increased circulation will attract more businesses to advertise in The Mercury. However, this will only be valid in scenarios where circulation is the only factor that determines the number of advertisements that a newspaper publishes. For example, it might be possible that other newspapers with similar circulation, as that of The Mercury, provide better and cheaper advertising options. In such circumstance, businesses will be more inclined towards cheaper and better advertising options. Hence, the argument needs to provide a comparison between the advertising plans of newspapers in the market to validate its claim.

In conclusion, the argument due to above-mentioned reasons is weak. However, it can be strengthened by providing evidence and facts that support its assumptions, as highlighted in previous paragraphs, and by pointing out, with clear evidence, the root cause of the problem, which The Mercury faces. But in the light of given information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.