Hi there, thanks for your question. The island merchants' protest is based on a report that indicated that Penglai businesses using outdoor advertising had a larger market share than businesses that did not.
But the proposed rule would eliminate *all* outdoor advertising.
The flawed method of reasoning in the stimulus, therefore, is that the merchants assume that the outdoor ads played some role in increasing market share *other than diverting trade* from competing businesses.
Think about it this way - if all outdoor advertising is eliminated, then no business will have a larger market share than any other on the basis of outdoor ads, right? So the merchants should not rely on this report. The fact that they do so is an indication that the merchants are assuming that the outdoor ads are playing some role in increasing market share other than diverting trade. And that is the flaw.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
