In the preceding statement, the newspaper publisher claims that the decreasing circulation is due to one of the competitors’ lower price strategy, and therefore they will have to as well lower the price to bring back readers as well as sales of advertising spaces. Although the argument may well have merit, the publisher presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, so we cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue with the publisher’s reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. He attributes the paper’s declining circulation to solely one of the competitors advantage, failing to discuss other factors that may have also been affecting the situation. Even if The Mercury loses readers mainly because of the competitor, which implies the newspaper has failed to create loyal readers, the problem may also be the quality of the news content. Moreover, the publisher does not consider the result of reducing price, which may also lower the profit margin and further cause difficulty in continuing encouraging the circulation by such means. If it is truly the best way to do so as the publisher argues, the newspaper would need to clearly explain the strategy considering the aspects discussed above to be more convincing.
In addition, the publisher makes assumptions remaining unproven that cannot link between the evidence and conclusion. The business assumes the readers choose newspaper merely based price instead of other considerations, such as quality of content or availability. Even if the publisher is convinced that readers care the most about price, it weakens the argument by making assumptions without providing evidentiary supports.

In sum, the publisher’s illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render its conclusion invalid. If the newspaper truly wants to