From Kaplan:
(I know there are spelling errors, I knew they were wrong while I was writing it but I couldn't figure out how to correctly spell the words
)
“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.”The argument as presented here contains content that misstates facts, fails to provide evidence supporting the opinion presented, and employs flawed reasoning. The author of this piece assumes that raising the price of a product will automatically fix the problem, without analyzing what is causing the deterioration of the postal office or examining how the decrease in volume could impact revenues. The author also fails to cite any studies or instances where another country has implemented a similar system and seen a positive result, meaning that they have presented no evidence to support their conclusion. Finally, the author fails to look at other solutions that could help to reverse the deterioration of the postal service, such as bringing back certain services that were once popular and useful.
Probably the weakest assumption in the article is that by simply increasing the price, revenues will increase. The author does acknowledge that the price hike would most likely result in a smaller volume of mail, however they fail to explain how revenues will continue to increase once the demand decreases. They have not considered that it is possible for the price to be increased to a point where when demand falls, stamps reach a new equilibrium, and there is neither an increase nor decrease in profits from stamps. The author has not presented any research saying that the decrease in the volume of mail will be made up for by the new stamp revenue, as opposed to those two things balancing each other out. It is very possible with how unpopular the post office is and the increasing popularity of e-mail, online banking, and online magazines, that this rise in price could be the final nail in the post office's coffin.
Secondly, the author of the article fails to present any evidence supporting their claims that this would be a worthwhile solution to the decline of the postal service. They have not presented any evidence that a similar change in another country or territory has led to an improvement in morale or revenues, and have failed to cite the research stating that the decrease in volume will not have an adverse impact on the newly increased revenues. The author fails to show proof of concept that the change in price will have any kind of positive effect on the United States Postal Service, and instead has presented a half formed idea on how they think the system could be fixed. If they had included more evidence- studies, other countries who had success with this idea, or surveys from post office customers- then the argument would surely be much more convincing. Instead, they have presented a hypothesis that has yet to be tested.
Finally, there are other ways to rejuvinate the post office that the author has failed to even consider, ideas that have already been tested and were very popular. One such idea is to give the postal service more responsibility. It used to be that the post office offered very basic banking services to those in rural areas, those who would have to drive for over an hour to be able to go open a bank account or cash a check. By offering these services, for a small fee, they built up morale and support for the post office in these communities and performed a very needed service for those who could not easily go to a financial institution. The author could have explored the fact that, while most mail is moving to an electronic form, the post office has the infrastructure and staff to achieve other useful things that can aid the citizens of this country. The author could have presented more innovative or creative ideas that post offices around the world already use, or have used, to make themselves an integral part of the country.
As stated above, the argument in the article relies too much on misstating facts about how supply and demand work. The author uses flawed reasoning to state that somehow a decrease in volume will help to increase revenues, and offers no evidence to support this claim. While a price increase may very well help, the way it was presented here was misleading to readers. They could have made a much more convincing argument if they had included examples of other countries that have implemented these changes, or even just studies or surveys showing this would have a positive effect on the post office. The author also failed to consider other solutions that could rejuvinate the postal service, implying that the only way to reverse the deterioration the post office is experiencing is by raising prices. In order to reverse the deterioration of a system that is becoming more outdated every day, the industry needs something innvigorating and new, not an idea about pricing that ignores the laws of supply and demand.