Hey, please let me know your thoughts! Thank you!
The publisher of a newspaper, The Mercury, claims that to increase the number of readers, the newspaper should reduce its price below that of its competitor, The Bugle. This increase in circulation will thus improve the revenue of the newspaper by attracting more businesses to advertise with The Mercury. This argument lies on several faulty assumptions, including causation errors, vague terminology and lack of evidence to substantiate any claims. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and falls apart at the seams.
First, the argument claims that ever since The Bugle, a competing newspaper that charges a lower price than The Mercury, was started five years ago, The Mercury’s circulation has reduced by 10,000 readers. This is a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between either newspaper. For instance, The Bugle might be focused on a completely different industry, such as media and entertainment, whereas The Mercury is focused on news stories covering hardcore business and finance. If that is the case, clearly this argument will not hold true. Without any background information on its competitor and on the relationship between the two newspapers, the argument is weakened.
Second, the argument readily assumes that to increase readership, the best way would be for The Mercury to reduce its price below The Bugle. This statement is a stretch as it lacks any substantive evidence. Neither do we know if The Bugle is a competitor to The Mercury, nor do we have any statistical evidence to support the theory of a reduction in price. Had we been given some evidence, such as surveys or polls taken by current readers and past readers stating that price was an issue, the assumption could have been supported. However, we don't even know if it is price that is causing such reduction in readership or some other factor, say lack of powerful stories. If the stories in The Mercury itself are terrible, then even with a 50 percent reduction in price, circulation may not improve.
Finally, the argument concludes that such increased circulation will improve revenue by attracting businesses to advertise with The Mercury. Not only is this claim largely wishful thinking, but even if we do consider for a minute that with reduced pricing, circulation does increase, how do we know that businesses will want to advertise with The Mercury? If they haven’t done so in the past, even while The Mercury had good circulation, why would they now? What about the terms of such advertising? With an increase in advertising, won’t circulation be affected again, as people read newspapers for the news, not to read the advertisements. Without answers to any of these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of the faulty assumptions aforementioned. If the argument had drawn upon examples as suggested, and thereby plugged in the holes in the reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole.