1: Some readers who do not subscribe now would do so if the paywall let them sample more first. · 2: The bundle would draw in people who would not have subscribed to the news on its own.
The two editors recommend different fixes, and each fix rests on an unstated assumption. The columns ask you to find the assumption that holds up each side. The test is to deny the assumption and see whether that recommendation collapses.
The assumption Udoh's recommendation depends on. Udoh wants an easier paywall so readers can sample more before paying. For that to grow the paying base, there have to be readers who do not subscribe now but would once they could sample more, real new subscribers the looser paywall would convert. Deny it, suppose no current non-subscriber would subscribe even with more free articles, and the easier paywall just gives away more free reading without adding payers, so Udoh's recommendation does nothing. Because its denial sinks the case, the recommendation depends on it. That is the statement to pick in Udoh's column.
The assumption Vargas's recommendation depends on. Vargas wants to bundle the news with the audio app so one subscription gets both. For the bundle to grow the base, it has to draw in people who would not have subscribed to the news on its own, not just hand a second product to readers who were going to subscribe anyway. Deny it, suppose everyone who takes the bundle would have subscribed to the news regardless, and the bundle adds no new subscribers, so Vargas's recommendation fails to grow the base. The recommendation depends on the bundle pulling in people the news alone would not have. That is the statement to pick in Vargas's column.
That plenty of readers would subscribe if they could sample more is a premise Udoh states outright, not the hidden assumption his case needs; it is given, so it is not the thing the recommendation secretly rests on. The cost comparison says the paywall change is cheaper, which makes it attractive but is not something either growth argument depends on. The two absolute statements, that no subscriber ever joined without a free sample and that every decliner refused only because of the paywall, are far stronger than either recommendation requires; Udoh needs some new subscribers from a looser paywall, not a universal law about how everyone subscribes, and his case does not need every decliner to be a paywall case.
The discipline: an assumption a recommendation depends on is the unstated claim whose denial sinks it, not a premise already stated and not a stronger-than-needed absolute.
Udoh depends on: some non-subscribers would convert if they could sample more. Vargas depends on: the bundle pulls in people the news alone would not have.