Hi could I please have my essay graded too on this prompt? Thanks!
Essay:
The argument presents the claim that the best to get people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. However, this claim is supported by dubious logic, jumps to conclusions, and a lack of undeniable evidence. As a result, the argument is flawed, weak, and unconvincing.
To begin with, the argument states that since The Bugle, a lower priced newspaper, was started 5 years ago, The Mercury’s circulation declined by 10000 readers. Though this may seem like a potentially convincing piece of evidence at first glance, closer inspection reveals many unconsidered factors in this statistic. Firstly, there are many factors as to why The Mercury’s circulation could have declined, including, but not limited to, a lack of printed copies, readers choosing to read news on the internet rather than the newspaper, or a different competitor altogether, all of which have nothing to do with The Bugle. Additionally, even if circulation went down by 10000 readers, there is no information regarding how many readers there are at the moment, and if that number happens to be a big figure in the millions, then a 10000 in 5 years may not be a reason for concern at all. In order to make this piece of evidence more convincing to the argument’s main point, the argument should provide more background details specifically discussing how The Bugle in particular is the main reason for The Mercury’s noticeable decline in readers.
Second, the argument states that the best way to increase the reader count of The Mercury is to lower the price of the newspaper below that of The Bugle. Once again, however, this statement is baseless and is an illogical jump to conclusion. Starting off with the price point, there is no presented proof that shows that the price is the reason for the reader count dropping; as discussed in the last paragraph, there are many other factors unrelated to The Bugle that could be at play here. However, assuming that The Bugle’s newspaper is the perpetrator of this 5-year trend, there are still other reasons that The Bugle’s newspaper could be prevailing over The Mercury’s in reader count, such as a wider range of news coverage, more people talking about The Bugle rather than The Mercury, or a higher amount of funding from sponsors and consequently more printing power. Had the argument shown evidence that the price point is the reason why former readers of The Mercury are not reading The Mercury’s newspaper, and that those same readers are flocking to The Bugle’s newspaper, this would have been a more convincing statement.
Lastly, the argument mentions that increased circulation of The Mercury’s newspapers will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper. While this would be a good way to earn back revenue for The Mercury, there is no such guarantee that this chain of events would occur should circulation rise. One of the reasons is that controversy, such as scandals or corrupt individuals in a company, often scares potential readers and investors away from said company, and no matter how much circulation The Mercury may have, if they are involved in such controversy then other business would not be willing to advertise on The Mercury’s paper out of fear of public reputation. On top of this, even if increased circulation does bring in more advertising from businesses, there is no proof showing that this would help increase readership; ironically, this could potentially make readers actually less willing to read The Mercury. Advertisements are often viewed as annoying by media consumers, hence why despite companies’ best efforts to force consumers to watch ads (like YouTube for example), people find ways around them, including adblockers or pirated content. As such, while on one hand inviting businesses to take up more advertising space in The Mercury’s would provide a source of revenue, on the other hand it has the possibility of alienating readers of The Mercury and driving them away to read other newspapers with less advertisements in them. Hence, the argument needs to present a evidence showcasing that the number of businesses willing to advertise on The Mercury and the number of readers of The Mercury share a directly proportional relationship and not an inversely proportional one.
In conclusion, the publisher of the announcement shown above fails to deliver a convincing argument supporting his/her proposed plan to increase the reader-base of The Mercury newspaper, and consequently relies on illogical jumps to conclusions and weak evidence. In order to better assess the situation and present a concretely supported argument, it is essential that the publisher provides strong evidence bolstering his/her reasoning, assess all related factors, and eliminates room for any contrasting points that may serve to undermine the argument’s claim.