Last visit was: 27 Apr 2026, 03:03 It is currently 27 Apr 2026, 03:03
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
avatar
Alexandra23
avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2014
Last visit: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 3
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Please rate my AWA Updated on: 03 Feb 2014, 01:07
Originally posted by Alexandra23 on 28 Jan 2014, 02:30.
Last edited by Alexandra23 on 03 Feb 2014, 01:07, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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 claims that since the lower-priced newspaper The Bugle started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10 000 readers, and the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space on the paper is relied on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are other reasons for decline in the readership, i.e: free-online news, cable news, the growth of connected devices - especially mobiles, aging audience etc. The recent study shows that more than half the population read news online and prefer not to buy the print version of newspapers. The recent surveys also found that newspapers have suffered dramatic circulation declines all over the world, when free-online news market exploded. So, it could be a coincident that the Bugle entered the market when free-online news market exploded and impacted paid-newspaper market. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the Bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of the Mercury should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. This conclusion is not convincing as price is not the only factor influencing readers whether or not to read a certain newspaper. There are a whole host of factors that could influence the circulation of newspapers, i.e. paper’s format, extend and accuracy of newspaper’s news, timelines, rate of errors etc.
The following examples could support my point of view:
Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post - the circulation of Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post is higher than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
Lower-priced newspaper The Day - - the circulation of newspaper The Day lower than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel on how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provide link between the lower price and increase in readers, then the argument would have sound more convincing.
Finally, the Mercury’s claim, an increase in the Mercury’s circulation will lead to an increase in business buying the Mercury’s advertising space, needs to be digged further than just a newspaper market. The Mercury must find out which contents have more robust circulation: the newspaper industry or the other industries, ie. online space . The recent surveys show that more businesses prefer to buy advertising space online, rather than in newspapers, because newspaper industry as a whole is losing its readers, market share and circulation rate. That is why it could be more profitable for businesses to buy advertisement space online, than in newspapers. In order to attract more businesses to buy the Mercury’s advertising space, the Mercury must not only look at newspaper market, but look at the overall readers market.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.
avatar
bharatdivvela
avatar
Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Last visit: 02 Jan 2024
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
39
Given Kudos: 21
Schools: HEC Dec"18
GMAT Date: 02-04-2014
Schools: HEC Dec"18
Posts: 34
Kudos: 39
Please rate my AWA 02 Feb 2014, 07:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Alexandra23
The argument claims that since the lower-priced newspaper The Bugle started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10 000 readers, and the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space on the paper is relied on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are other reasons for decline in the readership, i.e: free-online news, cable news, the growth of connected devices - especially mobiles, aging audience etc. The recent study shows that more than half the population read news online and prefer not to buy the print version of newspapers. The recent surveys also found that newspapers have suffered dramatic circulation declines all over the world, when free-online news market exploded. So, it could be a coincident that the Bugle entered the market when free-online news market exploded and impacted paid-newspaper market. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the Bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of the Mercury should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. This conclusion is not convincing as price is not the only factor influencing readers whether or not to read a certain newspaper. There are a whole host of factors that could influence the circulation of newspapers, i.e. paper’s format, extend and accuracy of newspaper’s news, timelines, rate of errors etc.
The following examples could support my point of view:
Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post - the circulation of Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post is higher than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
Lower-priced newspaper The Day - - the circulation of newspaper The Day lower than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel on how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provide link between the lower price and increase in readers, then the argument would have sound more convincing.
Finally, the Mercury’s claim, an increase in the Mercury’s circulation will lead to an increase in business buying the Mercury’s advertising space, needs to be digged further than just a newspaper market. The Mercury must find out which contents have more robust circulation: the newspaper industry or the other industries, ie. online space . The recent surveys show that more businesses prefer to buy advertising space online, rather than in newspapers, because newspaper industry as a whole is losing its readers, market share and circulation rate. That is why it could be more profitable for businesses to buy advertisement space online, than in newspapers. In order to attract more businesses to buy the Mercury’s advertising space, the Mercury must not only look at newspaper market, but look at the overall readers market.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.
Show more





hey, i think you forgot to post argument. It is difficult to evaluate you awa without the argument.
avatar
Alexandra23
avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2014
Last visit: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 3
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Please rate my AWA 03 Feb 2014, 01:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bharatdivvela
Alexandra23
The argument claims that since the lower-priced newspaper The Bugle started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10 000 readers, and the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space on the paper is relied on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are other reasons for decline in the readership, i.e: free-online news, cable news, the growth of connected devices - especially mobiles, aging audience etc. The recent study shows that more than half the population read news online and prefer not to buy the print version of newspapers. The recent surveys also found that newspapers have suffered dramatic circulation declines all over the world, when free-online news market exploded. So, it could be a coincident that the Bugle entered the market when free-online news market exploded and impacted paid-newspaper market. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the Bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of the Mercury should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. This conclusion is not convincing as price is not the only factor influencing readers whether or not to read a certain newspaper. There are a whole host of factors that could influence the circulation of newspapers, i.e. paper’s format, extend and accuracy of newspaper’s news, timelines, rate of errors etc.
The following examples could support my point of view:
Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post - the circulation of Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post is higher than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
Lower-priced newspaper The Day - - the circulation of newspaper The Day lower than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel on how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provide link between the lower price and increase in readers, then the argument would have sound more convincing.
Finally, the Mercury’s claim, an increase in the Mercury’s circulation will lead to an increase in business buying the Mercury’s advertising space, needs to be digged further than just a newspaper market. The Mercury must find out which contents have more robust circulation: the newspaper industry or the other industries, ie. online space . The recent surveys show that more businesses prefer to buy advertising space online, rather than in newspapers, because newspaper industry as a whole is losing its readers, market share and circulation rate. That is why it could be more profitable for businesses to buy advertisement space online, than in newspapers. In order to attract more businesses to buy the Mercury’s advertising space, the Mercury must not only look at newspaper market, but look at the overall readers market.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.





hey, i think you forgot to post argument. It is difficult to evaluate you awa without the argument.
Show more


Hey,
Thank you for your useful comments!)
I have already post the argument.
avatar
bharatdivvela
avatar
Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Last visit: 02 Jan 2024
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
39
Given Kudos: 21
Schools: HEC Dec"18
GMAT Date: 02-04-2014
Schools: HEC Dec"18
Posts: 34
Kudos: 39
Please rate my AWA 22 Feb 2014, 07:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Alexandra23
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 claims that since the lower-priced newspaper The Bugle started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10 000 readers, and the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space on the paper is relied on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are (may be) other reasons for decline in the readership, i.e: free-online news, cable news, the growth of connected devices - especially mobiles, aging audience etc. The recent study shows that more than half the population read news online and prefer not to buy the print version of newspapers. The recent surveys also found that newspapers have suffered dramatic circulation declines all over the world, when free-online news market exploded. So, it could be a coincident that the Bugle entered the market when free-online news market exploded and impacted paid-newspaper market. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the Bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of the Mercury should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. This conclusion is not convincing as price is not the only factor influencing readers whether or not to read a certain newspaper. There are a whole host of factors that could influence the circulation of newspapers, i.e. paper’s format, extend and accuracy of newspaper’s news, timelines, rate of errors etc.
The following examples could support my point of view:
Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post - the circulation of Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post is higher than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
Lower-priced newspaper The Day - - the circulation of newspaper The Day lower than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel on how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provide link between the lower price and increase in readers, then the argument would have sound more convincing.
Finally, the Mercury’s claim, an increase in the Mercury’s circulation will lead to an increase in business buying the Mercury’s advertising space, needs to be digged further than just a newspaper market. The Mercury must find out which contents have more robust circulation: the newspaper industry or the other industries, ie. online space . The recent surveys show that more businesses prefer to buy advertising space online, rather than in newspapers, because newspaper industry as a whole is losing its readers, market share and circulation rate. That is why it could be more profitable for businesses to buy advertisement space online, than in newspapers. In order to attract more businesses to buy the Mercury’s advertising space, the Mercury must not only look at newspaper market, but look at the overall readers market.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.
Show more


nice work..
first of all, sorry for the late reply..
In the second paragraph, you have brought some facts which were not in the argument. You have stated points as if they are facts. I don't think that that works and don't know whether it is ok on gmat
In the last paragraph, instead of writing in a generic way, you could have specifically stated what more info would strengthen the argument.

I am not an expert and hence you don't take too serious to each and every mistake I have pointed to. Just have a look at it, and if you feel it is worth changing, do it. otherwise no.
avatar
Alexandra23
avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2014
Last visit: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 3
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Please rate my AWA 22 Feb 2014, 14:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bharatdivvela
Alexandra23
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 claims that since the lower-priced newspaper The Bugle started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10 000 readers, and the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space on the paper is relied on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are (may be) other reasons for decline in the readership, i.e: free-online news, cable news, the growth of connected devices - especially mobiles, aging audience etc. The recent study shows that more than half the population read news online and prefer not to buy the print version of newspapers. The recent surveys also found that newspapers have suffered dramatic circulation declines all over the world, when free-online news market exploded. So, it could be a coincident that the Bugle entered the market when free-online news market exploded and impacted paid-newspaper market. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the Bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of the Mercury should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. This conclusion is not convincing as price is not the only factor influencing readers whether or not to read a certain newspaper. There are a whole host of factors that could influence the circulation of newspapers, i.e. paper’s format, extend and accuracy of newspaper’s news, timelines, rate of errors etc.
The following examples could support my point of view:
Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post - the circulation of Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post is higher than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
Lower-priced newspaper The Day - - the circulation of newspaper The Day lower than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel on how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provide link between the lower price and increase in readers, then the argument would have sound more convincing.
Finally, the Mercury’s claim, an increase in the Mercury’s circulation will lead to an increase in business buying the Mercury’s advertising space, needs to be digged further than just a newspaper market. The Mercury must find out which contents have more robust circulation: the newspaper industry or the other industries, ie. online space . The recent surveys show that more businesses prefer to buy advertising space online, rather than in newspapers, because newspaper industry as a whole is losing its readers, market share and circulation rate. That is why it could be more profitable for businesses to buy advertisement space online, than in newspapers. In order to attract more businesses to buy the Mercury’s advertising space, the Mercury must not only look at newspaper market, but look at the overall readers market.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.


nice work..
first of all, sorry for the late reply..
In the second paragraph, you have brought some facts which were not in the argument. You have stated points as if they are facts. I don't think that that works and don't know whether it is ok on gmat
In the last paragraph, instead of writing in a generic way, you could have specifically stated what more info would strengthen the argument.

I am not an expert and hence you don't take too serious to each and every mistake I have pointed to. Just have a look at it, and if you feel it is worth changing, do it. otherwise no.
Show more
bharatdivvela
Alexandra23
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 claims that since the lower-priced newspaper The Bugle started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10 000 readers, and the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space on the paper is relied on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are (may be) other reasons for decline in the readership, i.e: free-online news, cable news, the growth of connected devices - especially mobiles, aging audience etc. The recent study shows that more than half the population read news online and prefer not to buy the print version of newspapers. The recent surveys also found that newspapers have suffered dramatic circulation declines all over the world, when free-online news market exploded. So, it could be a coincident that the Bugle entered the market when free-online news market exploded and impacted paid-newspaper market. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the Bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of the Mercury should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. This conclusion is not convincing as price is not the only factor influencing readers whether or not to read a certain newspaper. There are a whole host of factors that could influence the circulation of newspapers, i.e. paper’s format, extend and accuracy of newspaper’s news, timelines, rate of errors etc.
The following examples could support my point of view:
Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post - the circulation of Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post is higher than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
Lower-priced newspaper The Day - - the circulation of newspaper The Day lower than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel on how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provide link between the lower price and increase in readers, then the argument would have sound more convincing.
Finally, the Mercury’s claim, an increase in the Mercury’s circulation will lead to an increase in business buying the Mercury’s advertising space, needs to be digged further than just a newspaper market. The Mercury must find out which contents have more robust circulation: the newspaper industry or the other industries, ie. online space . The recent surveys show that more businesses prefer to buy advertising space online, rather than in newspapers, because newspaper industry as a whole is losing its readers, market share and circulation rate. That is why it could be more profitable for businesses to buy advertisement space online, than in newspapers. In order to attract more businesses to buy the Mercury’s advertising space, the Mercury must not only look at newspaper market, but look at the overall readers market.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.


nice work..
first of all, sorry for the late reply..
In the second paragraph, you have brought some facts which were not in the argument. You have stated points as if they are facts. I don't think that that works and don't know whether it is ok on gmat
In the last paragraph, instead of writing in a generic way, you could have specifically stated what more info would strengthen the argument.

I am not an expert and hence you don't take too serious to each and every mistake I have pointed to. Just have a look at it, and if you feel it is worth changing, do it. otherwise no.
Show more


Hi, thank you for your comments. I'll try to change my essay.
avatar
bharatdivvela
avatar
Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Last visit: 02 Jan 2024
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
39
Given Kudos: 21
Schools: HEC Dec"18
GMAT Date: 02-04-2014
Schools: HEC Dec"18
Posts: 34
Kudos: 39
Please rate my AWA 22 Feb 2014, 21:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Alexandra23
bharatdivvela
Alexandra23
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 claims that since the lower-priced newspaper The Bugle started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10 000 readers, and the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space on the paper is relied on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are (may be) other reasons for decline in the readership, i.e: free-online news, cable news, the growth of connected devices - especially mobiles, aging audience etc. The recent study shows that more than half the population read news online and prefer not to buy the print version of newspapers. The recent surveys also found that newspapers have suffered dramatic circulation declines all over the world, when free-online news market exploded. So, it could be a coincident that the Bugle entered the market when free-online news market exploded and impacted paid-newspaper market. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the Bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of the Mercury should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. This conclusion is not convincing as price is not the only factor influencing readers whether or not to read a certain newspaper. There are a whole host of factors that could influence the circulation of newspapers, i.e. paper’s format, extend and accuracy of newspaper’s news, timelines, rate of errors etc.
The following examples could support my point of view:
Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post - the circulation of Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post is higher than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
Lower-priced newspaper The Day - - the circulation of newspaper The Day lower than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel on how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provide link between the lower price and increase in readers, then the argument would have sound more convincing.
Finally, the Mercury’s claim, an increase in the Mercury’s circulation will lead to an increase in business buying the Mercury’s advertising space, needs to be digged further than just a newspaper market. The Mercury must find out which contents have more robust circulation: the newspaper industry or the other industries, ie. online space . The recent surveys show that more businesses prefer to buy advertising space online, rather than in newspapers, because newspaper industry as a whole is losing its readers, market share and circulation rate. That is why it could be more profitable for businesses to buy advertisement space online, than in newspapers. In order to attract more businesses to buy the Mercury’s advertising space, the Mercury must not only look at newspaper market, but look at the overall readers market.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.


nice work..
first of all, sorry for the late reply..
In the second paragraph, you have brought some facts which were not in the argument. You have stated points as if they are facts. I don't think that that works and don't know whether it is ok on gmat
In the last paragraph, instead of writing in a generic way, you could have specifically stated what more info would strengthen the argument.

I am not an expert and hence you don't take too serious to each and every mistake I have pointed to. Just have a look at it, and if you feel it is worth changing, do it. otherwise no.
bharatdivvela
Alexandra23
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 claims that since the lower-priced newspaper The Bugle started, the circulation of the Mercury has declined by 10 000 readers, and the Mercury should reduce its price below that of the Bugle to increase its readership to former level. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion that the increased circulation will attract more businesses to buy advertising space on the paper is relied on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle is the sole reason for decline in its readership. This assumption is not substantiated in any way. There are (may be) other reasons for decline in the readership, i.e: free-online news, cable news, the growth of connected devices - especially mobiles, aging audience etc. The recent study shows that more than half the population read news online and prefer not to buy the print version of newspapers. The recent surveys also found that newspapers have suffered dramatic circulation declines all over the world, when free-online news market exploded. So, it could be a coincident that the Bugle entered the market when free-online news market exploded and impacted paid-newspaper market. The argument would have been much clearer, if it explicitly gave examples of how the low-priced newspaper the Bugle is responsible for the decline in the readership of the Mercury.
Second, the argument claims that the price of the Mercury should be reduced to increase its readership to the original level. This conclusion is not convincing as price is not the only factor influencing readers whether or not to read a certain newspaper. There are a whole host of factors that could influence the circulation of newspapers, i.e. paper’s format, extend and accuracy of newspaper’s news, timelines, rate of errors etc.
The following examples could support my point of view:
Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post - the circulation of Higher-priced newspaper Kiev Post is higher than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
Lower-priced newspaper The Day - - the circulation of newspaper The Day lower than in any other newspapers in Ukraine.
In fact, the argument does not draw a parallel on how lower price will increase the readership. If the author provide link between the lower price and increase in readers, then the argument would have sound more convincing.
Finally, the Mercury’s claim, an increase in the Mercury’s circulation will lead to an increase in business buying the Mercury’s advertising space, needs to be digged further than just a newspaper market. The Mercury must find out which contents have more robust circulation: the newspaper industry or the other industries, ie. online space . The recent surveys show that more businesses prefer to buy advertising space online, rather than in newspapers, because newspaper industry as a whole is losing its readers, market share and circulation rate. That is why it could be more profitable for businesses to buy advertisement space online, than in newspapers. In order to attract more businesses to buy the Mercury’s advertising space, the Mercury must not only look at newspaper market, but look at the overall readers market.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerable strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to make this argument more convincing, the author should have provided evidences that support the conclusion of the argument.


nice work..
first of all, sorry for the late reply..
In the second paragraph, you have brought some facts which were not in the argument. You have stated points as if they are facts. I don't think that that works and don't know whether it is ok on gmat
In the last paragraph, instead of writing in a generic way, you could have specifically stated what more info would strengthen the argument.

I am not an expert and hence you don't take too serious to each and every mistake I have pointed to. Just have a look at it, and if you feel it is worth changing, do it. otherwise no.


Hi, thank you for your comments. I'll try to change my essay.
Show more


one more thing, try to avoid using I,my... so on.. In argument essay, it is not ok to use first person pronouns
Moderator:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7390 posts