Argument Mapping, Research Paper Example

Claim

“The U.S. should return to the 55- mph speed limit to conserve fuel and save lives.”

Information

After a 1973 oil embargo imposed on Arab nations, the Congress passed a 55mph speed limit in a bid to conserve fuel. However, this was later repealed in 1995 with the speed limit raised to 75 mph, but still, the States could put in place the speed limits they desired. However, in the recent past, most Americans believe that in order to save lives and conserve fuel, there is a need to revert to the speed limit of 55 mph (Watts & Barton, 2011, p.383).

Warrants

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserts, every five mph you drive above the speed of 50 mph is similar to using an extra $ 0.16 per gas gallon (EPA, 2011).

In rural interstates, there was a fatal crashes surge by 21.8%, upon raising the speed limit to 70 mph (Zhang, Jiang, Zhang, Bing, & Lu, 2014, p.33).

Qualifier

Experts argue that setting the highway speeds from between 50 and 60 mph reduces the gas usage by 2-3%.

It has also been revealed that the national speed limit set in 1975 saved at least 167,000 oil barrels in a day hence improving fuel economy.

Backing

Vehicles tend to be fuel-efficient when they are driven between 30 to 60 mph. When the speed is increased above the 60mph mark, mileage tends to drop sharply.

The reduction of speeds to 55 mph has also been associated with a reduced gasoline consumption of about 2% to 3%. This can result in the price reduction of gasoline to as much as 10%, which is 38 cents for every gallon.

There was a decline of 16.4% of road fatalities in the first year of the inception of the speed limit of 55 mph (Friedman & Hedeker, 2009).

Objection

There is controversy on whether slow speeds really reduce fuel consumption. The only agreed method of reducing fuel consumption is driving at a constant speed, be it 55 mph or 75mph.

There is also the fear that bringing in the legislation of lowering the speed limit will slow the traffic and increase the tickets and insurance premiums linked to speeding. Others mention that the argument of reducing speed to save gas is not valid as at the moment, the drivers have a choice to reduce speed and save gas.

Lastly, in the last two decades’ injuries associated with overdose of drugs are high when compared to accidents; hence the idea of reducing speed limit isn’t founded.

Rebuttal

With the increase in technology, the modern vehicle is fuel-efficient, and thus the general fuel savings per barrel is insignificant even when the speed is lowered back to the 55mph of 1975.

Assume that the original qualifier was certainly; indicate whether the qualifier changes as we move from simple, static, uncontested argument to a complex, dynamic, and contested argument.

A vehicle attains an optimal fuel economy at distinct speeds. This is highly dependent on the make, transmission, model, and year. According to consumer reports done on a 2006 Toyota Camry, it was established that increasing speed cut the gasoline mileage dramatically as depicted below;

• Above 55 mph – 40 miles per gallon
• Above 65 mph. – 35 miles per gallon
• Above 75 mph – 30 miles per gallon

This means that for a trip of about 1900 miles to and fro it at least 46 gallons at a speed of 55 mph are needed. However, at 75 mph, 64 gallons are needed, and this amount to a $70 difference. This means that if each reduces driving by 10%, savings can amount to at least a million barrels in a day. Additionally, rural interstates that increased speed limits to 70 or 75 mph had a surge of 38% more deaths. It is thus clear reverting to the speed limit of 55mph can help conserve fuel and save lives.

Apply the argument mapping procedures presented in Chapter 8 to analyze the pros and cons (or strengths and weaknesses) of the recommendations that the United States should not intervene in the Balkans.

According to Dunn (2012), the U.S. has no strategic interest with the Balkans; hence this justifies why they should not intervene in the war (Dunn, 2012). Additionally, the government of Bosnia and the forces of Serbia need to be solved among themselves without any involvement of the U.S. military. The Gulf war had given the U.S. government a lesson such that conflicts in the Balkans were deemed to be amicably sorted by the European nations.  Fortunately, the European powers favored themselves intervening in the conflict as opposed to the U.S. The involvement of the U.S. in the war would have affected others who didn’t have direct control, thus killing innocent civilians. There was also a possibility of the conflict spilling out of the Balkans, making it spread to counties like Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Albania, and even the U.S. (Dunn, 2012). The intervention of the United States would have further created a cold war between Russia and the U.S. as Russia would help the Bosnian people.  All these reasons were valid in making the U.S. not intervene in the war.

Write a one (1) page analysis 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 Bosnia Civil War was a three-year-long conflict happening between 1992 to 1995 as a result of Yugoslavia breaking up. As a country, Yugoslavia was formed in 1918, and it collapsed due to the territorial conflicts happening among the Balkans that is the Serbs and the Bosnians. Despite the Serbs and Bosnians being individuals if the same ethnic group, they had differences in religion as well as they couldn’t agree on the constitution. As such, it is clear that the United States was not involved in starting the civil war. Engaging in such a war is a clear indication that it’s getting involved in other people’s rivalry (Jehl, 1994). The United States’ intervention in the war would even escalate the war further as it had no strategic interests.  In fact, engaging in such a war would migrate the war to the United States, and additionally, there is no instance of U.S. intervention, which has not led to the death of many innocent citizens. For instance, in its invasion in Somalia, many residents became vulnerable. Women were raped, deaths reported while bombings were made on innocent civilians. Additionally, the United States invasion would break the relationship with other European nations as Yugoslavia had good relationships with the European nations. Intervening may thus result in the emanating of a cold war with nations such as Russia hence creating even more problems. The Balkans had all the capacity to solve the conflicts surrounding them; thus, the U.S. intervention was unnecessary as it would create even more problems in finding peace (Jehl, 1994). It is for all these reasons where the U.S. shouldn’t involve itself in wars that are beyond its understanding.

Claim

“The conflict in Bosnia is somebody else’s trouble. The U.S. should not intervene militarily.”

Information

The Balkans war is the Civil War that occurred between Serbs and Bosnians. The conflict grew when Bosnia had a rise in nationalism, thus calling for cessation from Yugoslavia.

Warrants

The United States has no strategic interest in the Balkans. The United Nations promotes the sovereignty of nations to solve their own issues and desist any foreign interference.

Qualifier

The Balkans were not posing any threat to the United States, and it was even friendly to all European Nations and the United States.

Backings

Intervention may harm American interests; the argument against American intervention is its ineptitude and the harm it causes to all parties involved.

A cold war between the United States and Russia could be triggered if the U.S. intervened in the conflict

Objection

Non-intervention towards the conflict was giving room for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims who were mostly targeted during this war.

Rebuttal

The subject of respecting a nation’s sovereignty provides some lieu for civil wars and dictators to massacre their citizens. The lack of military intervention within the Balkans led the war to progress, thus killing thousands of innocent civilians. In some instances, it is clear that sovereignty can be overruled, and a military intervention officiated for the sake of saving lives. Instances, where sovereignty has resulted in the death of innocent citizens, are not only confined to the Balkans but in Germany during the Nazi regime and in the Rwanda genocide. While the U.S. made an intervention of dropping food to affected areas, military intervention could have helped ease the tension despite the lack of strategic interests.

References

Dunn, W. N. (2018). Public policy analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Friedman, L.S. & Hedeker, D. (2009) Long-Term effects of repealing the National Maximum Speed Limit in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 99 (9), pp. 1626-1631

Jehl, D. (1994) Conflict in the Balkans; Clinton outlines U.S. interest in Bosnia airstrikes retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/10/world/conflict-in-the-Balkans-Clinton-outlines-US-interest-in-Bosnia-airstrikes.html

Watts, T. & Barton, J. (2011) I Can’t Drive 55: The Economics of the C.B. radio phenomenon. Independent Review, 15 (3), pp.383-397

Zhang, C., Jiang, Y., Zhang, Y., Bing, X., & Lu, J.J. (2014) An optimal speed limit investigation on the highway for emission reductions. Advances in Transportation Studies, (33) p.33-44. Doi: 10.4399/97888548728993