Nothing to add

Well, if yesterday was about two full pages of political advertorial, today it was about a coaching institute and its online preparatory programme for chartered accountancy exams hogging the entire first page one of my newspaper that spoiled my morning reading exercise.
The ‘well-intentioned’ advertisement claimed that the said coaching institute has a perfect understanding of the painpoints of CA aspirant like no other and enrolling here might help one crack the exam with flying colours and without taking too many attempts.
A small box at the end mentioned the packages available, and a promo code to avail further discount for the 360° comprehensive online coaching.
The said coaching institute already has a programme running for banking/SSC/State PSC exam, and plans to introduce civil services exam coaching soon.
To say the least, the institute must have spent crores to bag this prime space in the leading national daily.
My two cents on their attempt to capture the market of specialised online coaching questions the veracity of their claim, and the missing trust factor. “On an average, it takes 5 attempts to crack CA.” After repeating the previous sentence thrice, it says, “Don’t like repeating, then XYZ is for you.” It is a misleading statement to start with, and there would be many gullible ones who are likely to fall for their tall claim.
To say the least, the full-page ad openly flouts the ASCI’s Code for Self-Regulation in Advertising because the advertisement states and leads the public at large to believe that enrolment in the preparation programme at the said coaching class will provide the student a guaranteed CA degree in less than five attempts. My question here is – will the advertiser submit substantiation to such effect and also assume full responsibility thereof in the same advertisement?
If not, then the advertisement fails to excel, and stays at the veranda.