GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following appeared in the opinion section of a national newsmagazine: "To reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. This solution will no doubt prove effective, since the price increase will generate larger revenues and will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system and contributing to improved morale." Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion. (used with permission from mba.com)

Answer :

The argument is based on a lot of assumptions and does not sound particularly convincing. The argument assumes that the only way to reverse deterioration is to generate more revenues. In addition to this it assumes increasing the prices of postage stamps will contribute to more revenues. The assumption that decreasing the volume of mail will also help our main goal is also not very sound in my opinion. The author also assumes eliminating strain on the existing system will only contribute to improved morale. The author in his first sentence also fails to mention what sort of deterioration are we trying to address here.
In assuming that only generating more revenues will solve the "deterioration" we would like to first know what this "deterioration" is. Is he looking to improve working standards of postmen? Is he looking to deliver the letters faster ? Does he want to improve the salaries of postmen? Does he want to improve their happiness index? Does he want to improve the industry's overall position in the market? If the author could put more light on the following points we would be in a better position to evaluate the solution mentioned in the argument.
The assumption that only increased revenues will solve the issue is also problematic. If the postal services are in loss then this position can be improved by increasing revenues or by decreasing operation costs. The author must again provide information about why decreasing operation costs is not an option and hence he is looking at only increasing revenues.
The author's first point is about increasing revenues in which he/she totally ignores the point that increased prices could push consumers of this service to look for other ways to send their messages. This could not only bring the revenues down but contribute towards more deterioration. This would therefore have an opposite effect.
The author is also wrong in assuming that a decreased volume of mail would eliminate the strain. Probably the volume is not a problem the stakeholders (postmen) face. It could be bad planning and long working as a result of that bad planning. It could be that the postmen are being assigned deliveries in an unplanned manner leading to them visiting a single area multiple times and then to deliver a minimum amount of letters they have long working hours. If the author could provide more information about what strains the postmen we would be in a better position to evaluate this solution.
The argument is based on a lot of assumptions ,many of them have no merit without additional information and hence the argument does not sound too convincing. The author would sound more logical if he could provide us with what kind of "deterioration" he is trying to address , why decreasing operation costs is not an option , what strains the postmen , why only decreasing the volume of mail will help. On all these counts we would be in a better position to evaluate the solution. For now the solution sounds unconvincing .