Essay Prompt:
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 reason you find this argument... etc.
My response:
The argument suggests that an appropriate solution to offset the deterioration of the postal service is an increase in the price of postage stamps. However, there are several points here that suggest it is underpinned by questionable assumptions, specifically: the suitability of the reduction of mail as an objective of a public service; the assumption that lower volumes of mail will lead to improved morale; and the assumption underpinning the assertion that larger revenues will result in a price increase, despite a reduction (assumed) in mail.
The argument suggests that a decrease in the volume of mail posted would be a positive outcome. This line of reasoning fails to consider whether the primary objective of the postal service, which is a public service, is not to limit access to its use. While the government would certainly want to alleviate any strain on its services, larger revenues and decreased volume may not be aligned to the purpose of the postal service.
Secondly, the belief that lower volumes of mail would lead to an elimination of the strain on the existing system and improved morale is flawed. There is no evidence provided here to suggest that the deterioration of the postal service is due to a high level of mail. Further, there is no mention of the role that low morale plays in the deterioration of the postal service. Even if low morale was a significant factor, there is no empirical evidence provided suggesting that a smaller workload would appease a disgruntled workforce. Other factors that could be responsible for exacerbating the strain on the system and/or poor morale could be linked to poor infrastructure, a high level of bureaucracy and red-tape, outdated systems or poor employee benefits.
Finally, the assumption that an increase in the price of postage stamps will generate larger revenues requires additional information to make it logically sound. There is no information to suggest that postage stamps constitute a significant portion of their revenues. If the author offered information to suggest that stamps comprise a large proportion of the government's bottom line, it would add more credence to this argument. Furthermore, based on the assumption made that the price increase would also result in a reduction in the volume of mail contradicts the author's own assertion. If less mail is sent, then less postage stamps will be used, therefore resulting in possibly lower revenues than before.
In conclusion, this argument is weakened by the lack of consideration paid towards the suitability of the reduction of mail as an objective of a public service; the presumption that high volumes of mail are responsible for the strain on the system and low employee morale; and the lack of information offered in the author's assertion that postage stamps would drive larger revenues, even in the face of an assumed reduction in mail.
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 reason you find this argument... etc.
My response:
The argument suggests that an appropriate solution to offset the deterioration of the postal service is an increase in the price of postage stamps. However, there are several points here that suggest it is underpinned by questionable assumptions, specifically: the suitability of the reduction of mail as an objective of a public service; the assumption that lower volumes of mail will lead to improved morale; and the assumption underpinning the assertion that larger revenues will result in a price increase, despite a reduction (assumed) in mail.
The argument suggests that a decrease in the volume of mail posted would be a positive outcome. This line of reasoning fails to consider whether the primary objective of the postal service, which is a public service, is not to limit access to its use. While the government would certainly want to alleviate any strain on its services, larger revenues and decreased volume may not be aligned to the purpose of the postal service.
Secondly, the belief that lower volumes of mail would lead to an elimination of the strain on the existing system and improved morale is flawed. There is no evidence provided here to suggest that the deterioration of the postal service is due to a high level of mail. Further, there is no mention of the role that low morale plays in the deterioration of the postal service. Even if low morale was a significant factor, there is no empirical evidence provided suggesting that a smaller workload would appease a disgruntled workforce. Other factors that could be responsible for exacerbating the strain on the system and/or poor morale could be linked to poor infrastructure, a high level of bureaucracy and red-tape, outdated systems or poor employee benefits.
Finally, the assumption that an increase in the price of postage stamps will generate larger revenues requires additional information to make it logically sound. There is no information to suggest that postage stamps constitute a significant portion of their revenues. If the author offered information to suggest that stamps comprise a large proportion of the government's bottom line, it would add more credence to this argument. Furthermore, based on the assumption made that the price increase would also result in a reduction in the volume of mail contradicts the author's own assertion. If less mail is sent, then less postage stamps will be used, therefore resulting in possibly lower revenues than before.
In conclusion, this argument is weakened by the lack of consideration paid towards the suitability of the reduction of mail as an objective of a public service; the presumption that high volumes of mail are responsible for the strain on the system and low employee morale; and the lack of information offered in the author's assertion that postage stamps would drive larger revenues, even in the face of an assumed reduction in mail.
