This is the article:
By Stephanie Mercado
The fact that the U.S. Postal Service lost $16 billion last year makes us rethink how relevant snail mail is for us.
In an effort to assist the already struggling service, the Postal Service hoped to cut down its six-day deliveries to five. What’s a day less to check the mail, which most of us don’t often do on a daily basis anyway, considering it would save a near $2 billion annually?
An independent agency that has long depended on the loyalty of American citizens, the service’s sense of urgency for reformation depicts how mail has become a dying breed since the introduction of electronic delivery. Five business days of delivery is not a huge operational change. We all function in a five-day mindset anyhow, yet Congress insists that the Postal Service must press on with six-day delivery.
The next year won’t be profitable nor will it be close to breaking even, following current expectations. Common logic can recognize the pattern that the Postal Service is trending towards. With technology coming in as mail’s greatest competitor, it will only advance onward from here. There is a movement for less paper—to go green—and to consume less, so more aspects of our society are moving to electronic processes. Fewer letters are sent out because of the attempt to go green, so maybe it is time to move away from delivering six days a week.
Despite being a national service appointed by government, the Postal Service does not need to be as much of a financial issue when there are plenty of other things that should be higher on the list of budget priorities.
If the Postal Service is requesting a business reformation that would save $2 billion, that sounds exactly like something that would be appealing to Congress. However, it does not look as if Congress is willing to change a struggling government-run operation for sake of the budget deficit and taxpayer dollars. If there is anything else on the budget than can be modified or cut as slightly as the Postal Service delivery days, I would expect Congress would not hesitate at the chance to save money.
It almost seems like a resistance to change. The Postal Service has been loyal to its citizens without complaint, and taken for granted. This request to cut out only one day is not for convenience of postal employees, but out of a humble need for the business.
An effort to at least try to save the Postal Service from greater losses should adhere to the decision to allow the change—a trial run of the five-day service, perhaps. The potential savings would definitely be worth trying. This could potentially mean $2 billion more into education, health care or other such programs.
Congress needs to recognize the problem they’re creating. Let the Postal Service do what it needs to do in order to dodge an even bigger setback if it was to suddenly go bankrupt. Yes, we need our mail delivered, but I think the benefits of a five-day service outweigh any disadvantages. I could not imagine any chaos caused by one day less delivery; we would still receive the same mail.
There would be less protest than if the Postal Service were to completely disintegrate from a sudden budget cut that would be more significant and dramatic than this minor step to relieve the financial pressures.
I can’t think of many downfalls aside from the fact that it would be one day less to check the mail. Sure, we would have to wait an extra two days if something is expected for weekend delivery. But for personal letters we can wait and at least know it’s coming. For business, there is a legitimate excuse for the delay.
Everything is going digital anyway, or at least providing the option to have electronic processing. It’s instantaneous, convenient, cheaper and better for the environment. Many of us have already recognized this and made the switch from paper to electronic.
The Postal Service is only trying to adapt in order to survive, so let it.
Thesis: Although the introduction is not clear by the reason that the company had lost a huge amount of money and the disorganization of the article are Mercado’s weaknesses, however the simple language Mercado uses and the message to all people are the strengths of the article.
you should write 4 body paragraphs:
1-introduction is not clear by the reason that the company had lost a huge amount of money
2-disorganization of the article
4-message to all people
The conclusion should be in a agree or disagree structure.