|
|
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.
27 Apr 2021, 08:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Q: Prompt: “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.””
Essay Format
The argument claims that in order to compete and increase circulation with the newspaper The Bugle, The Mercury should also lower its price referred to the paper until the time it surpasses its circulation volume. Stated in such a way, the argument is really very weak and the fact is presented in a distorted way and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes. The whole hypothesis could have been presented in a much clear manner with facts and figures and also with clean future plans.
First the author suggests that The Mercury in order to compete with circulation volume of The Bugle, should lower its price until its volume increases or at least is at par with The Bugle. Considering this way, the hypothesis presented makes the argument really weak. In order to attract viewership, the newspaper should reduce its price upto some extent, but on larger extent it should concentrate on the quality of the news or debates it is presenting to society at large. Also it should try to inculcate all age groups and genders genres in the newspaper so that it may be useful to all sectors of the society. In order to achieve better viewership, the author should consider a third party survey or audit regarding what is trending and making the newspaper in loss of readership. Unless the facts are baffled in a way, the arguments remains hazy.
Second, the author also suggest that by increased circulation The Mercury will attract more business to buy advertising space in the paper. This is true, however to the constraints that viewerships are attracted not only by reduced prices, but by incentives or offers in the same price. eg it could have been very well stated that the charges for a certain advertisement of 5 lines for 2 weeks would be charged certain amount with third week ad free or if the same is availed for 5 week then next three weeks ad would be free. Businesses also look for opportunities like this and welcome this approach rather reduction of prices.
Finally, the major flaw in the suggestion that by merely reducing price, the viewership of newspaper cannot be guaranteed. It could have been quite healthy, if the author would have suggested better measures such as attract a large sector of society or to woo business class or to have serious endorsement of journalism. Unless the author considers these legitimate options, increase in readership of newspaper cannot be guaranteed.
In conclusion, the argument remains flawed for the reasons cited above. The author should suggest better remedial measures to enhance the readership which could have more weightage in the case as above. In order to access the merit of the certain situation as here to increase the readership as well as business ads, the author should have full access of the knowledge and measures to increase the same. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Essay Format
The argument claims that in order to compete and increase circulation with the newspaper The Bugle, The Mercury should also lower its price referred to the paper until the time it surpasses its circulation volume. Stated in such a way, the argument is really very weak and the fact is presented in a distorted way and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes. The whole hypothesis could have been presented in a much clear manner with facts and figures and also with clean future plans.
First the author suggests that The Mercury in order to compete with circulation volume of The Bugle, should lower its price until its volume increases or at least is at par with The Bugle. Considering this way, the hypothesis presented makes the argument really weak. In order to attract viewership, the newspaper should reduce its price upto some extent, but on larger extent it should concentrate on the quality of the news or debates it is presenting to society at large. Also it should try to inculcate all age groups and genders genres in the newspaper so that it may be useful to all sectors of the society. In order to achieve better viewership, the author should consider a third party survey or audit regarding what is trending and making the newspaper in loss of readership. Unless the facts are baffled in a way, the arguments remains hazy.
Second, the author also suggest that by increased circulation The Mercury will attract more business to buy advertising space in the paper. This is true, however to the constraints that viewerships are attracted not only by reduced prices, but by incentives or offers in the same price. eg it could have been very well stated that the charges for a certain advertisement of 5 lines for 2 weeks would be charged certain amount with third week ad free or if the same is availed for 5 week then next three weeks ad would be free. Businesses also look for opportunities like this and welcome this approach rather reduction of prices.
Finally, the major flaw in the suggestion that by merely reducing price, the viewership of newspaper cannot be guaranteed. It could have been quite healthy, if the author would have suggested better measures such as attract a large sector of society or to woo business class or to have serious endorsement of journalism. Unless the author considers these legitimate options, increase in readership of newspaper cannot be guaranteed.
In conclusion, the argument remains flawed for the reasons cited above. The author should suggest better remedial measures to enhance the readership which could have more weightage in the case as above. In order to access the merit of the certain situation as here to increase the readership as well as business ads, the author should have full access of the knowledge and measures to increase the same. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderator:
