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.”
The argument claims that decreasing the price of the newspaper ‘Mercury’ will increase its circulation and allow it to generate revenue through other means such as advertisement. Although the argument is compelling at face value, it is ultimately untenable because it is filled with assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument unconvincing and as several flaws.
The argument implies that the competitor newspaper and the high price of the 'Mercury' are the sole factors that are causing the decline in circulation. Moreover, the author fails to consider other factors that may also cause circulation to decline such as the decline in total newspaper consumption, supply issue, the difference in information coverage of the two newspapers and difference in distribution channels of the two newspapers. Additional evidence on the impact of other factors that can cause ‘Mercury’s’ decline in circulation through market research can help support the argument. The author would also benefit from surveying newspaper consumers to see if a price reduction of 'Mercury' to that of 'Bugle' will be sufficient enough will increase their likelihood to buy 'Mercury' or if the decline in circulation is caused by another factor rather than price.
Building upon the implications that the ‘Mercury’s’ circulation can increase to former levels, the author offers the conditional argument that increasing circulation will help attract business to buy advertising. The author needs to consider the other factors that entice business to purchase advertising besides the amount of circulation. The obvious factor here is the newspaper's reader demographics and whether businesses will view the reader of ‘Mercury’ as the ideal demographic to advertise to. the author also needs to consider whether the amount of circulation of ‘Mercury’ compared to that of other platforms is enticing enough for businesses to buy advertisement. On the contrary, the newspaper's increase in circulation alone may not be sufficient to convince businesses to buy advertisement, especially if businesses can buy advertisement at similar newspapers, like 'Bugle' at cheaper prices. The author can conduct market surveys with businesses to better understand the drivers and barriers of buying advertisement and if the characteristics of 'Mercury' will motivate businesses to buys advertising.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed as it rests on too many logical fallacies to be viable like those mentioned above. 'Mercury' may not be losing readership due to the competition, reducing price may not lead to an increase in circulation and the increase in circulation may not lead to an increase in businesses buying advertisement. Ultimately, the argument can be strengthened by evidence that claims the decrease in price can result in changes in consumer behavior and evidence that support that businesses are likely to buy advertisement at 'Mercury'. In order to assess the merits of this situation, it is essential to have a full understanding of the drivers and barriers of consumer and businesses behavior. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 488 350
No. of Characters: 2635 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.7 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.4 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.094 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 212 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 173 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 129 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.706 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.103 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.559 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 344, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...s for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument unconvincing and as severa...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 212, Rule ID: BUY_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'by'?
Suggestion: by
...rculation will help attract business to buy advertising. The author needs to consid...
^^^
Line 5, column 387, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'newspapers'' or 'newspaper's'?
Suggestion: newspapers'; newspaper's
...ulation. The obvious factor here is the newspapers reader demographics and whether busines...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, hence, if, may, moreover, so, then, in conclusion, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 41.0 16.3942115768 250% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2748.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 488.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.63114754098 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.57498052533 2.78398813304 128% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.426229508197 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 875.7 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.6732950801 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.666666667 119.503703932 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1111111111 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.27777777778 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.16111278303 0.218282227539 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0614339306905 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0612863577613 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108693100024 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0331569461463 0.0628817314937 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 48.3550499002 56% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.67 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.