Please Review my AWA.GMAT in 7 days.Thanx for the time.

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 argument claims that reducing the price of mercury newspaper will increase its circulation and in turn will attract more advertising.Stated in this way the argument is based on questionable assumptions for which no clear evidence has been given.The argument is thus flawed and rather unconvincing.
Firstly,The argument is comparing mercury which is a weekly newspaper to bugle.But we have been given no information on whether bugle is a daily,weekly or a monthly newspaper.Also we have been given no information on the focus areas of these two newspapers.It is very likely that bugle and mercury focusses on completely different issues and as such are not even competing in true sense. for example mercury can be a newspaper focussing on sports and bugle might be a newspaper focussing on politics.So the true reason for mercury's decline might be a decline in interest in sports among people .so without knowing what are the focus areas of the two newspapers the argument has no legs to stand on.
Secondly, The argument attributes the decline in its circulation to lower price of bugle.But decline in circulation might have happened due to decline in population because of a natural catastrope. clearly if the circulation has declined due to non economic reasons mercury will not be able to increase its circulation by reducing price.Hence we need more evidence for the reasons behind decline in circulation of mercury.
Finally, The argument assumes that the increased circulation of mercury newspaper will attract more advertising space.This assumption might be true but has not been substantiated by any evidence or surveys.It might be possible that the business conditions are not favorable and the businesses are instead planning to cut on advertising costs.In such a situation even increased circulation will not attract increase advertising.the argument could have been strengthened if we were given a survey of intent among business owners to increase their advertising budget in newspapers.without more evidence the argument is weak.
To sum up , for the above mentioned reasons the argument lacks evidence and is therefore unsubstantiated. In order to access the true merit of a situation it is important to have all the underlying facts about it.