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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
23 Mar 2023, 19:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi GMAT club!
Could a few people read through my response to the following official prompt? I'm also curious to see what other weaknesses people think this argument has.
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.”
Response:
The publisher of The Mercury argues that the newspaper should lower its price to below that of a competitor to increase circulation. As support for the claim, the publisher points out that The Mercury’s circulation began to decline five years ago when its cheaper competitor launched. However, in making this conclusion, the publisher confuses correlation with causation, makes unsubstantiated assumptions, and uses vague numerical quantification. As a result, his argument is unconvincing.
First off, the publisher assumes The Bugle’s launch caused the decline in readers merely because the two events occurred during the same period of time. While The Bugle’s launch is a plausible proximate cause for The Mercury’s decline in readership, there are a host of other factors that may have caused the decline. For example, the population of the region where The Mercury is published may have decreased, a key journalist may have left, or there might have been general contraction in newspaper demand as people shifted to other channels to consume news. Clearly, without concrete evidence suggesting that former readers of The Mercury began instead reading The Bugle, assuming The Bugle’s launch caused the decline in readership is incorrect.
Furthermore, because the cause of The Mercury’s decline has not been adequately established, assuming that a lower price will increase circulation is faulty. If the cause of the decline is a deterioration in The Mercury’s content, offering the poor content at a lower price will do little to attract new readers or recapture former readers. In this case, the publisher would be better served recruiting new journalists and improving the stories it publishes. Had the publisher proved that price is hindering demand for The Mercury through focus groups or market research, his argument would be much more convincing. Again, because of its leap of faith assumptions, the argument is unpersuasive.
Finally, the other points to a 10,000-person decline in readership as requiring a decrease in prices, without offering any context to evaluate this figure. Without context, determining whether a 10,000-person decline is substantial decrease requiring a business response is impossible. To illustrate, imagine The Mercury had a reader base of 10 million people, and the size of its base tends to fluctuate by 50,000 readers month-to-month. In this case, a decline of 10,000 is insignificant, and certainly does not warrant such drastic action as slashing prices. Clearly, without further historical data to evaluate the recent trend, concluding that the company should reduce prices is unjustified.
In conclusion, the publisher’s argument to lower prices to increase readers is unconvincing. While he does raise some valid points, such as the lower launch of a cheaper competitor, he does not offer substantial evidence to justify his extreme recommendation. As a result, his argument makes several flawed assumptions, including confusing correlation with causation, and is unpersuasive.
Could a few people read through my response to the following official prompt? I'm also curious to see what other weaknesses people think this argument has.
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.”
Response:
The publisher of The Mercury argues that the newspaper should lower its price to below that of a competitor to increase circulation. As support for the claim, the publisher points out that The Mercury’s circulation began to decline five years ago when its cheaper competitor launched. However, in making this conclusion, the publisher confuses correlation with causation, makes unsubstantiated assumptions, and uses vague numerical quantification. As a result, his argument is unconvincing.
First off, the publisher assumes The Bugle’s launch caused the decline in readers merely because the two events occurred during the same period of time. While The Bugle’s launch is a plausible proximate cause for The Mercury’s decline in readership, there are a host of other factors that may have caused the decline. For example, the population of the region where The Mercury is published may have decreased, a key journalist may have left, or there might have been general contraction in newspaper demand as people shifted to other channels to consume news. Clearly, without concrete evidence suggesting that former readers of The Mercury began instead reading The Bugle, assuming The Bugle’s launch caused the decline in readership is incorrect.
Furthermore, because the cause of The Mercury’s decline has not been adequately established, assuming that a lower price will increase circulation is faulty. If the cause of the decline is a deterioration in The Mercury’s content, offering the poor content at a lower price will do little to attract new readers or recapture former readers. In this case, the publisher would be better served recruiting new journalists and improving the stories it publishes. Had the publisher proved that price is hindering demand for The Mercury through focus groups or market research, his argument would be much more convincing. Again, because of its leap of faith assumptions, the argument is unpersuasive.
Finally, the other points to a 10,000-person decline in readership as requiring a decrease in prices, without offering any context to evaluate this figure. Without context, determining whether a 10,000-person decline is substantial decrease requiring a business response is impossible. To illustrate, imagine The Mercury had a reader base of 10 million people, and the size of its base tends to fluctuate by 50,000 readers month-to-month. In this case, a decline of 10,000 is insignificant, and certainly does not warrant such drastic action as slashing prices. Clearly, without further historical data to evaluate the recent trend, concluding that the company should reduce prices is unjustified.
In conclusion, the publisher’s argument to lower prices to increase readers is unconvincing. While he does raise some valid points, such as the lower launch of a cheaper competitor, he does not offer substantial evidence to justify his extreme recommendation. As a result, his argument makes several flawed assumptions, including confusing correlation with causation, and is unpersuasive.
24 Mar 2023, 10:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 6 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 6/6
The essay is very well organized and easy to follow. Each paragraph has a clear focus and is connected to the overall argument.
Anatomy: 6/6
The essay has a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The introduction provides context for the argument, and the body analyzes the reasoning and evidence behind the argument. The conclusion summarizes the weaknesses in the argument and reaffirms the thesis.
Paragraph structure and formation: 6/6
Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and supports the overall argument. The paragraphs flow smoothly and are easy to follow.
Language and Grammar: 6/6
The language is clear, concise, and effective. The essay is free of grammatical errors and is easy to read.
Vocabulary and word expression: 6/6
The vocabulary is appropriate for the essay's purpose, and the author uses words effectively to convey their meaning. The essay avoids using overly complex language, making it accessible to a wide audience.
Overall score: 6/6
Coherence and connectivity: 6/6
The essay is very well organized and easy to follow. Each paragraph has a clear focus and is connected to the overall argument.
Anatomy: 6/6
The essay has a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The introduction provides context for the argument, and the body analyzes the reasoning and evidence behind the argument. The conclusion summarizes the weaknesses in the argument and reaffirms the thesis.
Paragraph structure and formation: 6/6
Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and supports the overall argument. The paragraphs flow smoothly and are easy to follow.
Language and Grammar: 6/6
The language is clear, concise, and effective. The essay is free of grammatical errors and is easy to read.
Vocabulary and word expression: 6/6
The vocabulary is appropriate for the essay's purpose, and the author uses words effectively to convey their meaning. The essay avoids using overly complex language, making it accessible to a wide audience.
Overall score: 6/6
Tryingmybesthere
Moderator:
