-
chugh.deepak
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:57 pm
A leading newspaper is recommending that the price of its newspaper must be lowered to level of competitive newspaper, Bugle. The recommendation follows a decline of 10,000 copies since the emergence of Bugle. Author believes that price reduction would cause more circulation of Mercury would lead to more business to buy advertising space in the business. At first glance the argument looks promising but if one looks at the situation more closely, one can easily find few fundamental flaws with the way argument is presented.
While it is clear that Mercury's circulation has reduced by 10000 since the emergence of Bugle but there are no supporting evidence for this claim. 2 Events happening one after other does not necessarily imply that former event caused the latter therefore these two events are casually related owing to absence of promising facts. Moreover, there could have been many other reasons such as content of the newspaper, which could have determinal effect on the circulation numbers.
Furthermore, the claim that only way to increase circulation is to reduce price below that of the Bugle circulation seems to be lacking evidence. Author again does nor provide any conclusive evidence to support the claims, nor does he suggest on what basis he made that claim. Did he take into account the people's verdict or this was result of any opinion poll? There could be various other ways to increase the circulation levels such as improvement of quality content, more articles to attract audience, increase the varities so that more people switch to Mercury.
Lastly, author's claim that increased circulation would attract more adverstising space seems to lack evidence. Furthermore, the question whether the losses occured due to reduction in prices would be offsetted by increased revenues from advertsing is still to be answered.
In conclusion,author fails to provide supporting evidences to justify the claims made in the argument. In addition it casually relates prices and increase circulation numbers. Had author provided some logical facts and justified assummptions the argument would have been well defined. Threfore the argument is weak and require further support to strengthen it.
While it is clear that Mercury's circulation has reduced by 10000 since the emergence of Bugle but there are no supporting evidence for this claim. 2 Events happening one after other does not necessarily imply that former event caused the latter therefore these two events are casually related owing to absence of promising facts. Moreover, there could have been many other reasons such as content of the newspaper, which could have determinal effect on the circulation numbers.
Furthermore, the claim that only way to increase circulation is to reduce price below that of the Bugle circulation seems to be lacking evidence. Author again does nor provide any conclusive evidence to support the claims, nor does he suggest on what basis he made that claim. Did he take into account the people's verdict or this was result of any opinion poll? There could be various other ways to increase the circulation levels such as improvement of quality content, more articles to attract audience, increase the varities so that more people switch to Mercury.
Lastly, author's claim that increased circulation would attract more adverstising space seems to lack evidence. Furthermore, the question whether the losses occured due to reduction in prices would be offsetted by increased revenues from advertsing is still to be answered.
In conclusion,author fails to provide supporting evidences to justify the claims made in the argument. In addition it casually relates prices and increase circulation numbers. Had author provided some logical facts and justified assummptions the argument would have been well defined. Threfore the argument is weak and require further support to strengthen it.
