Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
anandkriti
Joined: 09 Aug 2015
Last visit: 23 Feb 2017
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Location: United States
Schools: Tippie '18 (M$)
09 Aug 2015, 12:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument:
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 states that the circulation of The Mercury has declined by 10,000 due to a new low-priced newspaper that was started 5 years ago. It is suggested that the best way to increase The Mercury's circulation is to reduce its price below the other newspaper till The Mercury's circulation comes back to its former level, i.e. increases by 10, 000 newspapers. This increase in the circulation would result in attracting more business to buy advertising space in the newspaper. The argument lacks evidences to support its stand, hence is a weak argument.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the decline in the The Mercury's circulation is due to the introduction of new newspaper which is competing with it; however, it fails to provide evidence in its support. It also fails to consider that the introduction of a new low-priced newspaper five years ago may not be the reason for the decline in The Mercury's circulation, but there may be other factors that would have effected the decline, such as lack of loyal customers, decrease of interest in newspapers by people, introduction of other newspapers or means of news, decrease in the quality of The Mercury, among others.
Additionally, the argument also fails to provide evidence or suggestion that whether the decline in the The Mercury's circulation is equivalent to the gain in the circulation of The Bugle. There may be other reasons for which The Mercury may have lost its circulation, rather than to The Bugle, being low priced. The best way to increase the circulation of The Mercury suggested in the passage is that it should reduce its price to below The Bugle's till the circulation is reclaimed, however the reduction in price may not be the only variable that The Mercury may have to consider. There may be other variables that the newspaper may not be taking into account. Also, it is suggested that the decrease in the price will be only till the circulation goes back to its original level, however The Mercury might again lose its circulation if post attaining the circulation, it increases its price, as a result it will fall into a vicious circle, if considering that price may be the only reason for the decrease in the circulation.
Furthermore, the argument links the increase in the circulation of The Mercury with attracting more business to buy advertisement space in the paper. It does not provide evidenee to support its claim.
The argument fails to substantiate its claim on various levels; first that The Mercury's circulation has declined due to The Bugle's low price, second that the price is the only reason for the decrease in the circulation, adding to it that no other factors are responsible for the decline in the circulation, among others. If the argument would have provided evidences relating to the decline in circulation of The Mercury to the increase in the circulation of The Bugle and with only one variance in the two newspapers, i.e. of the price, then the argument would have been strong. In the absence of strong evidences and various gaps in the argument, the argument is weak and fails to convince the reader.
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 states that the circulation of The Mercury has declined by 10,000 due to a new low-priced newspaper that was started 5 years ago. It is suggested that the best way to increase The Mercury's circulation is to reduce its price below the other newspaper till The Mercury's circulation comes back to its former level, i.e. increases by 10, 000 newspapers. This increase in the circulation would result in attracting more business to buy advertising space in the newspaper. The argument lacks evidences to support its stand, hence is a weak argument.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the decline in the The Mercury's circulation is due to the introduction of new newspaper which is competing with it; however, it fails to provide evidence in its support. It also fails to consider that the introduction of a new low-priced newspaper five years ago may not be the reason for the decline in The Mercury's circulation, but there may be other factors that would have effected the decline, such as lack of loyal customers, decrease of interest in newspapers by people, introduction of other newspapers or means of news, decrease in the quality of The Mercury, among others.
Additionally, the argument also fails to provide evidence or suggestion that whether the decline in the The Mercury's circulation is equivalent to the gain in the circulation of The Bugle. There may be other reasons for which The Mercury may have lost its circulation, rather than to The Bugle, being low priced. The best way to increase the circulation of The Mercury suggested in the passage is that it should reduce its price to below The Bugle's till the circulation is reclaimed, however the reduction in price may not be the only variable that The Mercury may have to consider. There may be other variables that the newspaper may not be taking into account. Also, it is suggested that the decrease in the price will be only till the circulation goes back to its original level, however The Mercury might again lose its circulation if post attaining the circulation, it increases its price, as a result it will fall into a vicious circle, if considering that price may be the only reason for the decrease in the circulation.
Furthermore, the argument links the increase in the circulation of The Mercury with attracting more business to buy advertisement space in the paper. It does not provide evidenee to support its claim.
The argument fails to substantiate its claim on various levels; first that The Mercury's circulation has declined due to The Bugle's low price, second that the price is the only reason for the decrease in the circulation, adding to it that no other factors are responsible for the decline in the circulation, among others. If the argument would have provided evidences relating to the decline in circulation of The Mercury to the increase in the circulation of The Bugle and with only one variance in the two newspapers, i.e. of the price, then the argument would have been strong. In the absence of strong evidences and various gaps in the argument, the argument is weak and fails to convince the reader.
Moderators:
189 posts
