6.0 Essay or nah?
[#permalink]
06 Apr 2017, 19:29
“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.
This argument posits raising the price the price of postage stamps will generate larger revenues and reduce the volume of mail thus reducing strain on the existing system and contributing to improved morale. These points are used to support the argument's conclusion- "to reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps." However, this conclusion is too ambitious because it is supported by several unwarranted assumptions. Therefore, the argument is altogether illogical.
The argument states that raising the price of postage stamps will generate larger revenues but does not explain how or why it will. For example, the argument could be more logical or strengthened if had stated that raising the price of postage stamps will not influence consumer demand for postage stamps. If this were the case, then it would better support the fact that price increase will generate larger revenues. Though, even if the argument were correct about price increase generating larger revenues it does not go on to explain how it will eliminate strain on the "existing system. The argument could be strengthened by mentioning that larger revenues would help the postal service invest in more efficient technology. Also, it is ambiguous whether the reduced volume of mail by itself will eliminate strain on the existing system or whether the reduced volume of mail will or a combination of both. The argument also does not make a connection to how eliminating strain of the existing system would reverse the deterioration of the postal service. The argument needs to more specific, such as stating what is the cause of deterioration in the postal service. The argument could be strengthened by stating that too large of a volume of male has been an attributable cause of the deterioration of the postal service.
Furthermore, the argument does not thoroughly explain how contributing to improved morale actually helps reverse the deterioration of the postal service. The deterioration of the postal service could be attributed to other factors such as a shrinking market or by competition from a superior service. The argument could more appropriately introduce this fact by explaining that a decline in morale has actually lead to the deterioration of the postal service. Without this piece of information, the argument assumes what it sets out to prove. In addition, the argument's conclusion is particularly vulnerable because there could be other ways to reverse the deterioration of the postal service. For example, the government could lower the price of postage stamps which could increase consumer demand and also generate larger revenue. The argument does not explain why its solution would be optimal with respect to other potential solutions. The argument needs to reinforce that its proposed solution is the best solution.