Writing Feedback / [GRE] ARGUE, changing radio station - memorandum from the manager of WWAC [3]

* Would be great if anybody can help! *

The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of WWAC radio station.

"To reverse a decline in listener numbers, our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock-music format. The decline has occurred despite population growth in our listening area, but that growth has resulted mainly from people moving here after their retirement. We must make listeners of these new residents. We could switch to a music format tailored to their tastes, but a continuing decline in local sales of recorded music suggests limited interest in music. Instead we should change to a news and talk format, a form of radio that is increasingly popular in our area."

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

"
(Words: 30 mins. , Time: 436)

The author argues that a new format for WWAC radio is needed to meet the challenges posed by declining number of listeners in recent years. To be properly substantiated to be considered convincing, however, the argument requires further evidence on the new population mix, people's interest in listening to radio, their taste in the type of radio shows they prefer, and listeners' loyalty with existing news and talk shows.

First, it is necessary to examine how big the newly arrived population is in comparison to existing citizens in the area. If the increased number of people is substantial comparatively, it makes sense to focus the attention to those after retirement, while it would not be logical to target them if they are small in number. Moreover, how big is the population after retirement among the newly arrived population? This information also provides a guide in deciding the proper focus in targeting them.

Secondly, granted that the new citizens in the area are high enough in their number to be considered an important listener group, we need information as to how big portion of they actually listen to radio. Large number of radio listeners would make it sound to target them specifically, while a small group does not make this change worthwhile.

Moreover, the listeners' interest in rock-music through radio must be examined through evidence. Decline in sales of recorded music does not suggest that people no longer have interest in listening to music on radio. It simply means they are less willing to pay for previous prices for music CDs. What is needed is the comparison between changes of rate of people who wish to listen to rock-music versus those who prefer talk shows over time. In other words, if the changes in two such rates suggest a trend of increasing population interested in news and talk show, it is worthwhile to consider changing the format of radio.

Lastly, it is meaningful to check how satisfied listeners of current news and talk show radio are with other shows. High customer loyalty with already existing shows may point to possible difficulty in attracting new listeners, while substantial number of listeners willing to change shows suggest that there is chance in breaking into this new market.

The argument that radio format must be changed from rock music to news and talk is tenuous at best in its current form. Further evidence needs to be provided in terms of the number and proportion of new population and those after retirement, listener's interest in listening to music or news through radio, and customer loyalty of those who listen to news.

Writing Feedback / [GRE ISSUE] Government regulation in the economy. [3]

The below is my GRE ISSUE essay on government regulation. Please help !!!

GRE Issue Prompt

Some people believe that government regulation is needed in order to ensure the safety of consumer goods, while others believe that voluntary efforts of the producers of those goods suffice.

Write a response in which you discuss which view on the issue more closely aligns with your position and explain your reasoning. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address both views expressed above.

(Time 29:21 :, Length: 451)

An enduring debate in capitalistic market economy is one divided between the necessity of government's intervention and the market's ability to self-regulate. The statement discusses the two sides of the same debate in the area of safety of consumer goods. My opinion is one that sides with the need for government regulation in making sure that consumer goods are healthy and safe.

An antagonist of government involvement in the economy may argue that corporations in a laissez-faire economy can meet the public's need for safety as they pursue their own self-interest of profit and seek to attract customers who look for safer products. However, one must be careful not to overlook the fact that the corporations' prime motive is appearing to be for the public interest, while saving production costs as much as possible. When optimal safety is beyond the standard of corporate efficiency or profitableness, or when there are unproven harm or risk involved with the production of a product, corporations have no incentive to burden the costs necessary to ensure that the good is safe.

The first argument for government regulation is that it has the public's best interests at heart. By its nature, the government exists to protect the public's health and well-being. It is perhaps the only body that has enough motive and power to stay clear of possible motive of profit or conflict of interest. Consider the case of cigarettes, for instance. Tobacco firms have the incentive to make cigarettes as addictive and appealing as possible to lure more customers into the habbit of smoking. It is the government that in turn regulates the amount of nicotine and tarr in the cigarettes, in addition to putting labels to warn customers of possibility of lung cancer.

Secondly, the government is open to public scrutiny and blame and is thus accountable when something goes wrong. In the event when market standards for product safety are inadequate, the public can directly influence the government to remedy the situation. Citizens have rights to contact their congressmen, petition for a bill, organize a rally or a movement to push the government's to change current regulations. In such an event the government is forced by its nature to introduce harsher regulations, while a corporation in the same kind of pressure is not forced to abide by public demand.

It must be acknowledged, however, the concerns for government inefficiency or bureaucratic nature are valid and important. These issues are not reasons why the government should stay clear of product regulations but the reverse is true. Unless we have a perfect market where information regarding products are perfectly distributed, the government is needed to act as a guardian to protect public health and safety.