Please rate my AWA, I have an exam day after tomorrow
[#permalink]
06 Sep 2016, 23:24
“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 argument claims that, The Mercury’s Newspaper circulation has declined, due to the lower-priced “The Bugle” newspaper. Stated in this way the argument has failed to consider the content of the newspaper. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no evidence. Hence the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the decline in the circulation of Mercury Newspaper is due to the lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle. The statement is a stretch. Author fails to consider other possible reasons for the decline. For example, decline of circulation could be due to change in the preferences of readers. The content in the newspaper is one of the key factors, which author failed to consider. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the other key factors.
Second, the argument claims that reduction in price will increase the circulation. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument doesn’t demonstrate any correlation between the increase of the circulation and lowering the price of a newspaper. To illustrate, cheaper does not always attract more customers. People always prefer to for a brand because of the quality. Most importantly, cheaper products may leave a doubt on the quality in the customer mind. If the argument had provided evidence that lowering the price of a newspaper, increases the circulation, then the argument would have been lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument has to evaluate, how the decrease in the price of the newspaper will increase the circulation and how it will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.