PAD520 Week3 Assignment 1
PAD520 Week3 Assignment 1
Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 9 page Study Guide was uploaded by tophomework Notetaker on Saturday November 14, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 31 views.
Reviews for PAD520 Week3 Assignment 1
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 11/14/15
ARGUMENT MAPPING 1 ARGUMENT MAPPING Week 3 Assignment #1 Joseph Brown Dr. Richard Freeman PAD520 April 23, 2013 ARGUMENT MAPPING 2 Create an argument map based on the influence diagram presented in Case 1.3 and complete all the criteria provided in the exercise, beginning with this claim: “The U.S. should return to the 55 mph speed limit in order to conserve fuel and save lives.” “The law was a response to the 1973 oil embargo, and its intent was to reduce fuel consumption. In the year after the National Maximum Speed Law was enacted, road fatalities declined 16.4%, from 54052 in 1973 to 45196 in 1974” ( Friedman & Hedeker, 2009). In 1974, the federal government passed the National Maximum Speed Law, which restricted the maximum permissible vehicle speed limit to 55 miles per hour (mph) on all interstate roads in the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 50 mph is like paying an additional $0.25 per gallon for gas, in additional; driving each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed; gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 50 mph”. Aggressive driving to incudes; speeding, rapid acceleration and braking wastes gas. Sensible driving can lower your gas mileage and also safer for you and others, so you may save more than gas money. Some studies show that drivers are changing their habits or lifestyle in a number of ways to offset gas prices. According to an AAA national survey of 1,011 adults in March, consumers reported changing their habits in the following ways: 86% Driving less, 54% driving a more fuelefficient cars, 33% carpooling, and 15% using public transportation. ARGUMENT MAPPING 3 U.S. gasoline demand has been relatively low at about 8.3 million barrels a day recently, compared with a more typical 9 million barrels per day, said John Zehler Jr., president of Virginia Fuels Inc. of Mechanicsville, a fuels distributor. One expert says reducing highway speeds from 70 mph to 60 mph would reduce gasoline consumption between 2% and 3%. That could translate into a price reduction of as much as 10%. At today's price, almost 38 cents a gallon. But on the other hand, James Baxter is opposing such. Mr.s Baxter is currently the president of the National Motorists Association, which lobbies to preserve the rights of drivers. According to him, Cars going 55 mph get noticeably better mileage than cars going 75 mph. With arbitrary, low, speed limits, that advantage is reduced by interrupted traffic flow, darting, weaving, braking, and accelerating as faster traffic beats its way through slower traffic scattered across all lanes of the highway. Compare this with a highway with a more reasonable and accommodating speed limit where the traffic moves more in sync and there is less braking and accelerating and the slower traffic stays out of the leftmost passing lane. His meaning argument is that a lower speed limit cannot have a material effect on fuel consumption, besides being ignored by motorists, is that the preponderance of motor fuels is consumed on streets, roads, and highways that already have lower speed limits and, more importantly, lower speeds. He continue to say that only 20 to 25 percent of all traffic volume is on highways with speed limits above 55 mph, and this traffic is already achieving superior fuel economy to that of traffic plodding along in urban and suburban areas. “Only 1.2 percent of the nation's 3.8 million roadway miles are interstate highway” (Baxter, 1999). He explained that in conditions like congestion and bad weather where speed limits become even more irrelevant and ARGUMENT MAPPING 4 it should become obvious that changing numbers on speed limit signs on roads where perhaps 15 percent of all fuel is consumed will not yield the nirvana of "energy independence." Anyone who would propose a increase in the speed limit to save time and be on time has overlooked the obvious cost of slowing down the entire country. The faster freight and people move across America has increase fuel cost and so on. Reducing speed limit as a solution to OPEC oil has all the logic of lowering the cost per oil barrier. Sen. John Warner, RVa., cited a study by the Congressional Research Service that showed that the 1974 law which set a national speed limit of 55 mph saved 167,000 barrels of oil per day, 2 percent of U.S. highway fuel consumption. "Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America's highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater," (Coile, 2008). Many states objected to the 1974 law, states like Montana and Kansas barely complied with the national speed limit law doing the 70’s. The new bill threatens to withhold federal highway funds and even risk having their highway construction funds shifted to transportation safety and education projects if they refuses to comply under the new bill. Since the enactment of the 1974 law on national speed limit of 55 mpg, the federal government has been doing research upon researches to better proof the significant of the law. A federal study in 1982 found that 83 percent of vehicles monitored on New York's interstate system were exceeding the 55 mph limit. But the law's supporters point out that lower speed limits succeed in reducing fatalities on highways. A National Academy of Sciences study found that the 55 mph limit saved between 2,000 and 4,000 lives each year. ARGUMENT MAPPING 5 Assume that the original qualifier was certainly; indicate whether the qualifier changes as we move from a simple, static, uncontested argument to a complex, dynamic and contested argument. Consumer Reports tested the effect of higher speeds on gas mileage. David Champion, director of auto testing, found that boosting the highway speed of a 2006 Toyota Camry cut gasoline mileage dramatically: •55 m.p.h. – 40.3 miles per gallon •65 m.p.h. – 34.9 miles per gallon •75 m.p.h. – 29.8 miles per gallon On a hypothetical 1,900mile round trip from New York City to Disney World in Florida, the Camry would use 47 gallons of gas at 55 mph. But at 75 mph, it would burn nearly 64 gallons which is a $70 difference. If everyone could reduce their driving by just 10 percent, the savings would total nearly 1 million barrels of gasoline every day. If the federal government was serious about critically reducing motor fuel consumption, it could start by redirecting the money being wasted on ticket writing campaigns, laser guns, stealth cruisers, ticket cameras, and related wages and redeployed such funds investment strategies to better move traffic in urban and suburban environments, where most fuel consumption actually occurs. According to Baxter (2009), “there are huge savings to be realized by simply synchronizing and coordinating traffic signal systems”. Cities that have started this process are not only reaping benefits like reduced fuel use, they are also realizing improved air quality, significantly faster commute times, far less congestion, and less wear and tear on vehicles. Removing obstacles to smooth traffic flow, including most stop signs and traffic "calming" ARGUMENT MAPPING 6 devices, and scrapping other strategies intended to interrupt and disrupt traffic would dramatically improve fuel economy for the entire vehicle fleet. Write an analysis of 12 pages that uses critical thinking to assess the overall plausibility of the claim: “The conflict in Bosnia is somebody else’s trouble. The U.S. should not intervene militarily.” The United States has no strategic interest in the Balkans that justified going to war. No Peace, no peace dividend. Unlike Saddam Hussein, Milosevic poses no threat to the world oil supply or to any other important resource or line of communication. He poses no military threat to the US allies or to the US. Here in the United States, the Bush Administration had decided not to become militarily involved in Balkan conflicts. The U.S. had fought the Gulf War in 1991 and coming off that war the Bush Administration was of the opinion that conflicts in the Balkans should be settled by the powers in Europe, and it was encouraged in this decision by European powers agreeing that it should be they who intervened in the Balkans rather than the United States. But with the failure of the Europe to stop the ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps, and the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the United States had to change its decision, taking on a leadership responsibility in ending the war in Bosnia. The strategy of muddling through that had characterized U.S. policy since the beginning of the conflict clearly was no longer viable. “The president made clear to his senior advisers that he wanted to get out of the box in which U.S. policy found itself. This box had been created by an unworkable diplomatic strategy of offering ever greater concessions to Serb President Slobodan Milosevic just to get the Bosnian Serbs to the table; by the longstanding refusal to put U.S. troops on the ground; by allied resistance to using force as long as their troops could be taken ARGUMENT MAPPING 7 hostage; by a U.N. command that insisted on "traditional peacekeeping principles" even though a war was raging; and by a U.S. Congress bent on taking the moral high ground by unilaterally lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnian government without, however, taking responsibility for the consequences of doing so” (Smitha 2011). The US, as sole superpower, must lead the effort to redress intervention. First, the US must develop a National Security Strategy and supporting National Military Strategy that are based upon clearly defined interests. “Definition of interests is tantamount to a declaration of pursuit of interests and effects credibility, capability, and strategic direction” (OngWebb 2009). These interests must be realistic, limited to those that are achievable and sustainable within US capabilities and supported by the intangibles of national will and culture. Interests require resolution to avoid contradiction and opportunistic interpretation. These interests should be limited to survival, stability, and prosperity. Humanitarian concerns should be recognized as values but not interests. Second, the US must avoid the quagmire of the defector legitimization of selfdetermination. People around the world always have different opinions about everything that the United States does. One of the ongoing debates right now that people are discussing is whether or not the United States should intervene in the internal conflicts of the Balkans. There are several assumptions and questions that should be explored. The United States should not intervene in the Balkans because: This area has always had a history of problems and has always worked it out before. The United States is being affected negatively. It is great that the U.S. wants to help but we are not able to help all the way; and. If the emotion and opinions are taken away it comes down to whether or ARGUMENT MAPPING 8 not it is lawful or justified under the UN charter for the U.S. to intervene. I believe that the United States should not intervene so much in the internal conflicts of the Balkans. Complete an argument map to illustrate your analysis. Claim The United States should not intervene in the Balkans Information Warrant QQualifier The Balkans conflict is a civil The United States does not TThe Balkans is friendly toward war. The war is among the have strategic interest in the tthe European Union and the Bosnians and Serbs. If the Balkans UUnited States West Backing Intervenes the Russians might do the same. If the US intervenes in the Balkans the Russian might retaliate and we might have a Cold war. Objection The war might spread if the US does not intervene .Also if the US does not intervene we can have an ethnic cleansing. Rebuttal an ethnic cleansing. There has been an increasing There has been an increasing cooperation among the European Union and the Balkans. ARGUMENT MAPPING 9 References Baxter, James. (2009). 55 MPH Speed Limit Is Unenforceable and Counterproductive. Retrieved on April 25, 2013; from: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/07/27/55mphspeed limitisunenforceableandcounterproductive Coile, Zachary. (2008). Speier seeks national speed limit to save gas. Retrieved on April 25 , 2013; from: http://www.saferoads.org/speierseeksnationalspeedlimitsavegas0 Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Driving More Efficiently. Retrieved on April 24, 2013’ from:http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drivehabits.shtml Dunn, W. N. (2012). Public policy analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Friedman, L. S., & Hedeker, D. (2009). LongTerm Effects of Repealing the National Maximum Speed Limit in the United States. American Journal Of Public Health, 99(9), 16261631. OngWebb, Graham(2009). Credibility over Courage: NATO’s MisIntervention in Kosovo. Retrieved on April 27, 2013; from:h ttp://www.academia.edu/412046/Credibility_over_ Courage_NATOs_MisIntervention_in_Kosovo Smitha, F.E. (20052011). War in Bosnia. Retrieved April 27th, 2013, from Macrohistory and Word Report:http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch353.htm
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'