During the recent campaign for mayor, a clear majority of city readers
[#permalink]
22 Sep 2020, 18:46
Hi there, would really appreciate if anyone would be willing to grade my essay. Thanks!
The following appeared in a memorandum from the publisher to the staff of The Clarion, a large metropolitan newspaper:
“During the recent campaign for mayor, a clear majority of city readers who responded to our survey indicated a desire for more news about city government. To increase circulation, and thus our profits, we should therefore consistently devote a greater proportion of space in all editions of The Clarion to coverage of local news.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyse the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluation its conclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The author argues that because a majority of survey respondents indicated that they would like to read more about city government, the Clarion would increase its circulation and profits by including more local news in its newspaper. Although this claim does have some merit, it is largely based on unfounded assumptions. The argument not only fails to indicate how representative the results of the survey are of all city readers, but it also fails to explain how increasing coverage of local news will surely lead to an increase in circulation and profits.
First, the author assumes that the survey results are indicative of how most city readers feel. Without knowing the sample size of the survey or what types of citizens were included, it is impossible to determine if the survey should be taken seriously. For example, the survey could have only been distributed to 20% of Clarion readers. In this scenario, the results would only indicate the desires of a small subset of readers. The argument could be strengthened by including what percentage of Clarion readers were sampled.
Second, it is assumed that simply devoting more space to local news will automatically increase circulation. Even if the large majority of Clarion readers desire to read more about city government, simply including more local news articles does not necessarily mean that news about city government will be included. For example, more coverage of local news could mean more articles about local crime, local weather, etc. In this scenario, those readers who wanted more information about city government would not be drawn in to buy the Clarion. The author could strengthen his/her argument by specifying that the Clarion should devote more space specifically to city government news.
Finally, it is taken for granted that increased circulation will result in increased profits. This is not necessarily true, as the efforts to include more local news coverage could cost more than the revenue brought in by increased circulation. The Clarion may have to hire more reporters to gather the local news, and their salaries could be greater than the money brought in from the increased circulation. In this case, the newspaper would actually lose money. To make the argument more convincing, the author should include estimates for how much it would cost to increase local news coverage and how much the increased circulation would bring in.
In conclusion, it is clear that the give argument is not strong enough. It relies on too many unsubstantiated claims and assumptions. With that being said, the argument can be strengthened through the recommendations mentioned above.