|
|
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.
26 Aug 2020, 03:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument:
"Since a competing low priced newspaper. The bugle, was started five years ago, the mercury 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 newspaper."
The essay:
The argument states that because of declining readership, Mercury must reduce its price below that of competing cheaper options such as the bugle. The conclusion goes ahead to say that this reduction in price would increase the demand for the newspaper after which advertisers would be able to get customer attention. It is unconvincing because it suffers from lack of facts.
There are many fallacies in the argument. Firstly, the argument goes ahead to say that the declining profits of the mercury started when the bugle was first launched. It goes ahead to say that the best way to increase readership is to reduce the price of mercury below that of the bugle. Lastly, the argument affirms that increased readership after the price reduction would lead to a situation wherein businesses would be interested to advertise in Mercury’s newspaper.
First, the argument assumes that fall in readership can be solely attributed to the start of a low price newspaper, the bugle. However, in reality there are a multitude of reasons for such a decline. For example, the fall in the readership can be attributed to decline in journalistic integrity, or decline in the quality of the articles of the newspaper, or it could be attributed to shift of the readers to an online source of information, etc. In recent times, most newspapers are experiencing a decline in readership because the users can get their information from online sources. Moreover, it's not correct to attribute decline in the mercury newspaper readership to the introduction of budget papers such as the bugle. New newspapers take many years to create a following so it's quite misleading to assume a steep reduction to a paper that just recently came out.
Secondly, the argument assumes that a price reduction would increase readership and subscription to the newspaper. However, newspaper subscription largely depends upon quality of articles, reputation of the newspapers, percentage of local media percentage, politician opinion expressed, level of accuracy in the news reporting, etc. most users don't emphasise much on the price of the newspaper as that isn't a very large source of worry for the readers. For example, most of the newspapers are within the same range of pricing and despite differences in the pricing, the price differences are almost comparable.
Lastly, the argument claims that reduction in the prices and increased readership would result in an increase in advertising interest. However, advertising in newspapers depends upon several factors, for example, relevance to the company’s marketing policies, age range of the readers, rates for advertising, region of distribution, etc. So, relying entirely on the number of readers can be often misleading because companies decide to advertise in newspapers depending upon multiple factors. Moreover, advertising in print media has reduced substantially because many companies are engaging in direct marketing and advertising with their customers using web cookies, youtube and purchase history.
Therefore, stated this way the argument is unconvincing and flawed. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
"Since a competing low priced newspaper. The bugle, was started five years ago, the mercury 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 newspaper."
The essay:
The argument states that because of declining readership, Mercury must reduce its price below that of competing cheaper options such as the bugle. The conclusion goes ahead to say that this reduction in price would increase the demand for the newspaper after which advertisers would be able to get customer attention. It is unconvincing because it suffers from lack of facts.
There are many fallacies in the argument. Firstly, the argument goes ahead to say that the declining profits of the mercury started when the bugle was first launched. It goes ahead to say that the best way to increase readership is to reduce the price of mercury below that of the bugle. Lastly, the argument affirms that increased readership after the price reduction would lead to a situation wherein businesses would be interested to advertise in Mercury’s newspaper.
First, the argument assumes that fall in readership can be solely attributed to the start of a low price newspaper, the bugle. However, in reality there are a multitude of reasons for such a decline. For example, the fall in the readership can be attributed to decline in journalistic integrity, or decline in the quality of the articles of the newspaper, or it could be attributed to shift of the readers to an online source of information, etc. In recent times, most newspapers are experiencing a decline in readership because the users can get their information from online sources. Moreover, it's not correct to attribute decline in the mercury newspaper readership to the introduction of budget papers such as the bugle. New newspapers take many years to create a following so it's quite misleading to assume a steep reduction to a paper that just recently came out.
Secondly, the argument assumes that a price reduction would increase readership and subscription to the newspaper. However, newspaper subscription largely depends upon quality of articles, reputation of the newspapers, percentage of local media percentage, politician opinion expressed, level of accuracy in the news reporting, etc. most users don't emphasise much on the price of the newspaper as that isn't a very large source of worry for the readers. For example, most of the newspapers are within the same range of pricing and despite differences in the pricing, the price differences are almost comparable.
Lastly, the argument claims that reduction in the prices and increased readership would result in an increase in advertising interest. However, advertising in newspapers depends upon several factors, for example, relevance to the company’s marketing policies, age range of the readers, rates for advertising, region of distribution, etc. So, relying entirely on the number of readers can be often misleading because companies decide to advertise in newspapers depending upon multiple factors. Moreover, advertising in print media has reduced substantially because many companies are engaging in direct marketing and advertising with their customers using web cookies, youtube and purchase history.
Therefore, stated this way the argument is unconvincing and flawed. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
Moderators:
188 posts
