To reverse the deterioration of postal service, the government should

I would also appreciate feedback.

The postal service has recently been in dire straits, a fact widely reported in the mainstream media. Numerous solutions have been proposed to maintain the speed of service and number of branches the current incarnation of the postal service provides. The author of this argument, for example, suggests that raising the price of postage stamps will reverse the deterioration of the postal service by generating larger revenues and reducing the volume of mail, actions which will eliminate the existing strains on the system and improve employee morale. This argument, however, is extremely poorly reasoned. It has a lack of supporting evidence and is filled with questionable premises and assumptions, which considerably weaken the overall argument.

A primary problem with the argument's reasoning is that it relies on questionable premises. The conclusion that raising the price will reverse the deterioration of the postal service relies on several sub-conclusions that operate as premises: the price increase will generate larger revenues and reduce the volume of mail, both of which will thereby eliminate strain on the existing system and improve morale. Two in particular are questionable. The third, that less mail will eliminate the strain on the existing system does not self-evidently seem true without further supporting evidence. The strain on the existing system could very well be relatively independent of the volume of mail. Some hypothesize that the postal system, unlike many other organizations, suffers from a culture of slow work and procrastination, that contribute to strain regardless of the load. The fourth premise is also questionable, that larger revenues with less mail will contribute to improved morale. It is not necessarily the case that morale could be improved by changing volume. It is in fact more likely, based on the evidence generally available, that the real cause of postal worker's low morale is their wages. Lower volume does not change the fact that their wages put them towards the bottom of the American earning spectrum. These questionable premises severely weaken the conclusion of reversing the deterioration of the postal service.

But not only are the premises questionable, the author also makes several leaps, or assumptions, that compromise the integrity of the argument. One glaring assumption is that price increases will generate larger revenues. Revenues are a product of price and quantity. Although price will increase, as the second premise of the argument itself indicates, quantity will decrease. The author fails to provide evidence that the price increase will overwhelm the quantity decrease. There is reason to believe it will be otherwise, because many people in the news media already complain about the price of the postage stamps. Another assumption the author makes is that the price increase will reduce the volume of mail. Although this is likely, this is hardly certain. There exist products for which the demand curve is upward sloping, or as price increases, quantity increases. Moreover, there are also products for which the fixes a price increase allows increases the quality of the product, in which case the demand for the product increases. That may very well be the case for this postal service. That is, if, as the author claims, the strain on the system will erode and employee morale will improve, the product of the postal service itself will likely improve through better and more timely customer experiences. As a result, quantity may go up instead of down. Were quantity to go up again, the strain may be recreated and morale may not increase, thus not stopping the deterioration of the postal service. These unwarranted assumptions compromise the whole argument.

Finally, although the author's claim may be accurate, the way s/he argues it is incredibly weak. Indeed, the author's argument may be strengthened in several ways. First and foremost the identified questionable premises could be provided supporting evidence. That is, for example, the author could provide evidence that there exists strain on the postal service due to a high volume of mail now, thus supporting the premise that reducing the quantity of mail will eliminate strains in the system. Similarly, the author could bridge the gap of the identified questionable assumptions. For instance, the author could make the claim that an increased price would decrease quantity much stronger by providing evidence from a consumer survey confirming that consumers would use the postal service less often if it were more expensive. But beyond the questionable premises and assumptions, the author could also do a stronger job of identifying the causes of the deterioration of the postal service. Simply listing off positive effects of a price increase does not constitute a compelling case to increase the price of the postal service's single product. The areas of improval, like employee morale for instance, could potentially be described as the causes of the deterioration of the postal service. Were the author to do this, and show that a price increase addresses the root causes of the deterioration, s/he would have a much stronger claim to having had argued that a price increase would reverse the deterioration of the postal service. With this changes, the author's line of reasoning may have been much more logically sound and persuasive.

This argument's reasoning was quite weak. It is filled with questionable premises, for example that lower volume would eliminate strains in the system or improve employee morale, questionable assumptions, for example that the price increase will increase revenues or decrease quantity, and unnecessarily weak argumentation, including a lack of supporting evidence where it was needed. The claim might be true with more logical, sounder reasoning. Given the importance of the postal service to freedom, commerce, and business, having a more well reasoned discussion of potential solutions would be extremely beneficial to the fate of America.