Hi, could someone kindly review and rate my essay?
Prompt:
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.
Essay:
The argument claims that in order to increase The Mercury’s circulation and to attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper, The Mercury’s price should be reduced, at least until circulation increase to former level. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that the decline of The Mercury’s circulation was because it has been losing to The Bugle, a newly lower-priced newspaper. However, the conclusion of the argument relies on the assumption for which no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that The Mercury’s decline in circulation was because of The Bugle. However, it fails to mentions other factors that may affect such decline. For example, it could have been that The Mercury’s contents have significantly change from five years ago, thus, now it caters to specific demographic such as businesspeople around the age of 30 to 55 years old. Clearly, if such factor have been the cause, then The Bugle is not the actual reason for decline in The Mercury’s circulation. Hence, it would have been better if the author explains the demography that The Mercury wants to cater now compared to that of five years ago.
Second, the argument also fails to mentions that The Bugle’s price is the reason it wins the sales competition against The Mercury. Even if it is true that The Mercury’s readers have shifted to The Bugle, other factors than lower price might play an effect. For instance, given other things the same, except price, it could have been because The Bugle’s contents are more interesting to the readers than The Mercury’s contents. Therefore, it would have been better if the author mentions the comparisons between the quality of The Mercury’s contents and that of The Bugle’s.
Third, the argument did not mention whether the decrease in The Mercury’s circulation will actually affect the number of businesses advertisements in the paper. For example, it could have been that, although the number of The Mercury’s circulation has decreased, the number of business advertisements in that paper has increased. This could be because The Mercury’s contents are now specifically catered to businesspeople aged 30 to 55 years whose probability to buy the product or service in the advertisement is higher. Thus, it would have been better if the argument mentions the effect of the decline in The Mercury’s circulation to the number of business advertisement.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the abovementioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.