1.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.” Include in the map as many warrants, backings, objections, and rebuttals as possible.
“The U.S. should return to the 55- mph speed limit in order to conserve fuel and save lives.” Supports
Cars are most fuel efficient when driven between 30 mph and 60 mph. Above 65 mph, mileage drops sharply. This isn’t rocket science. If drivers are forced to slow down, we would all use less gasoline.|
Surveys show that drivers have been changing their habits in order to cut fuel costs. Above 65 mph, mileage drops sharply. This isn’t rocket science. If drivers are forced to slow down, we would all use less gasoline.|
Experts say 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.
The fact that this simple solution, which only requires new signs, not new technologies.
Drivers have long known that slowing down on the highway means getting more miles to the gallon.
Steve from Idaho writes:
It is about time we Americans quit whining and start facing the reality that our lifestyles are going to, have to, change! We pride ourselves on having 3.2 cars in our garage and feel it’s our right to drive our big 8-cylinder SUVs. Lowering the speed limit to 55 miles an hour, times millions of cars, will save gas, reduce waste and may even bring the price of gas down a little.|
The congressman from Virginia state Warner, who was the Navy secretary during the early 1970s, said that the 55-mph national speed limit was the “centerpiece” of America’s efforts to “work its way through” the ’70s energy crisis. Subsequent studies showed that the law lessened the nation’s highway fuel consumption by 2 percent and saved up to 4,000 lives a year by reducing accidents.
Americans saved 167,000 barrels of petroleum a day when the 55-mph speed limit was in effect.
Most cars that are built today are designed to have their best fuel efficiency at 65 mph.
They already tried to reduce speed limit in Mississippi and all it did was tie up traffic and generate more speeding tickets.| 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 1,900-mile round trip from New York City to Disney World in Florida, the Camry would use 47 gallons of gas at 55 m.p.h.. But at 75 m.p.h., it would burn nearly 64 gallons – 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. In my opinion, the Congress should continue to allow the states to set their own speed limits. A limit of 55 mph may be reasonable in a congested state like New Jersey but impractical and unenforceable in a spacious northwestern state like Montana. The best way to reduce accidents and fatalities on roads is to enact tough drunk-driving laws, increase penalties for reckless driving (sometimes the most dangerous drivers are the slowest ones), and develop a toll system to reduce congestion. Conclusion:
Washington – Three decades ago, during an earlier energy crisis, Ronald Reagan strode into an Atlanta hotel for a political meeting. As he approached the auditorium, someone asked: “Governor Reagan, as a conservative, don’t you think the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit imposed by the government to save gas is a violation of our freedom?” In his amiable manner, Reagan chuckled quietly and replied something like this: “Well, that could be. But, speaking just personally, I think it’s not a bad thing if we all slow down just a bit and enjoy the scenery a little more.” It’s up to us. Save gas, and win this fight.
. Write an analysis of 1-2 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.” For over four years following the breakup of Yugoslavia and the onset of war, first in Croatia and then in Bosnia, the United States refused to take the lead in trying to end the violence and conflict. While many have written eloquently and passionately to explain Washington’s—and the West’s—failure to stop the ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps, and the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians, few have examined why, in the summer of 1995, the United States finally did take on a leadership role to end the war in Bosnia. By the end of July the United States and its allies confronted a situation that required concerted action. 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 long-standing refusal to put U.S. troops on the ground; by allied resistance to using force as long as their troops could be taken 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. 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.
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 self-determination. 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. If the emotion and opinions are taken away it comes down to whether or 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.
This area has always had a history of problems and has always worked it out before| The law states that it is not lawful to intervene if the state has not asked you to.| The Balkans does not suggest the need for human intervention| How does the United States plan to invade the Bosnia, and “make” everyone get along, except by killing foreign politicians? There is no other way beside the threat of violence, which the US must be willing to carry out if the threat is to be effective. If there is no killing to be done, why send the military?| We have no clear, definable mission in the Bosnia such that we can decide when we have done our job and when it is time to go home.| Strong Support
As a matter of practical wisdom, we cannot expect the federal government to treat American citizens like free persons when it treats the citizens of other nations like Bosnia badly by intervene military without asking.
Congressional Testimony. (2008, July). HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS:JACQUELINE S. GILLAN Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com Moore, Stephen (2005, April 25). Back to 55?. National Review, (7), 6, Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com Dunn, W. N. (2012). Public policy analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Regulatory Intelligence Data. (1999, November). SLOW DOWN WHEN GOING HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com State Department Documents / FIND. (2007, March). Resolving Kosovo Status Offers Region Path to Europe, U.S. Says Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com
Edward P. Joseph (2005, January 01). Back to the Balkans. Foreign Affairs, 111, Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com (2009). fallacy, formal and informal. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, v 3.0. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com