The following appeared in an e-mail sent by the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville."Over the past ten years, there has been a 20 percent decline in the size of the average audience at Classical Shakespeare Theatre product

Implementing ‘Free Shakespeare in the Park’ program may be a good plan to change the tide of the business of the Classical Shakespeare Theater. Nevertheless, the author’s argument is too weak to support the program because of flaws and lack of clarity of the argument. To illustrate the argument, the author needs to answer several vital questions.

First, for sure the free plays would introduce more people about the Shakespeare Theater, but the author assumes that people’s awareness is the only key to revitalize the trend of audience. It is possible that there are other factors affecting the trend of audience. The price of the tickets might be so high, defying the people in the middle class or beneath classes to buy the tickets. It is also possible that the taste of people has drastically shifted to recently released movies instead of the classic theater. The population in the town might be decreased. The advertising might not be absorbing enough and so on. Therefore, the author needs to provide evidence showing that there is no alternative reason beside the people’s awareness that resulted in the decline of the audience.

Secondly, the author cites a seemingly successful experience of the nearby Avon Repertory Company when it debuted a ‘Free Plays in the Park’. There are two problems with this case. First, the mere 10 percent increase in the audience is not reliable. It is possible that the profit of the company was 1$ and after taking this strategy it has become $1.1. We need an evidence to ascertain whether the increase was significant enough. Furthermore, assuming that the increase of the profits is significant, it should be evinced that it is only due to free plays that such an increase happened in Avon’s audience. Avon might use better advertisement or it is possible that Avon reduced the price of tickets to absorb more audience and so on.

Finally, even if the profits were significant for the Avon and it was only because of the free plays that profits rose, another evidence is needed attesting that the same strategy would work for the Shakespeare theater. There is no information about the spending on prompting the free plays. Shakespeare may need to pay many professional actors and actresses in the play, or the cost of preparation of the scene might be so high. If this is the case, then the free plays might exact a high price for the Shakespeare Theater. Therefore the author needs to place evidence attesting that Free Shakespeare Plays would be economically justifiable and would remain viable for the Theater.

In short, the enumerated vital questions whose answers are required to illustrate the argument, are unaddressed by the author. Therefore the conclusion which is based on such an unclear argument cannot be tenable.