Argument mapping by Michael A Stevenson pad 520 public policy
4/25/2014

Abstract
This paper covers two arguments by the usage of simple and complex argument maps. The first argument is on reducing the national speed limit to 55 mph and the second looks at the conflict in the Balkans and the debate of U.S. intervention.
Argument Maps for 55-mph and Balkan Conflict
There are numerous reasons to argue for and even against the 55 mph speed limit, as well as the question as to if the U.S. should or should not intervene in the Balkan conflict. This paper and its attached argument maps are designed to look at each of these arguments from both sides and make an informed decision concerning the matters. First, it will examine the claim “The U.S. should return to the 55- mph speed limit in order to conserve fuel and save lives.” Second it will examine the claim of “The conflict in Bosnia is somebody else’s trouble. The U.S. should not intervene militarily.” In either argument, there are pros and cons which much be addressed in order to make informed decisions concerning if policy makers should agree or disagree with either premise.
The U.S. Should Return to the 55- mph Speed Limit
The argument continues again today as to if the United States should return to the 55mph speed limit. Higher gas prices have forced some American drivers to trade in their S.U.V.’s for smaller, more fuel-efficient cars; combine errands in an effort to drive less; or even add air to their tires to eke out a few more miles per gallon. Since 1975 when the U.S. government did lower the speed limit to a mandatory 55mph on major highways and then repealed the law in 1995, many have long believed that this is again a solution to the problem of highway deaths and conserve already high priced and dwindling fuel supplies (Moore, 1999).
In the simple argument map in figure 1, the argument is very simple and straight forward and presents an almost black and white view that justifies a return to the lower speed limit. The argument contends that a lower speed limit saves 167,000 barrels of oil per day (Selingo, 2008), and could save approximately 6,400 lives per year (Moore, 1999). With the increase in the cost of a barrel of oil and the overall increase in fuel prices, the argument appears to be a sound one in this argument map.
Figure 1 – Simple Argument map for 55-mph
In Figure 1, the Simple Argument Map for 55 mph. the original qualifier was certainly, but in Figure 2, the Complex Argument Map for 55 mph. the qualifier changes and is much less certain. With over 70 percent of drivers not observing the posted 55 mph speed limit and states not enforcing it, the mandated speed limit has had the effect of negating the benefits of the lower speed limit (Selingo, 2008). Furthermore, with the increase in today’s modern vehicles fuel efficiency, the overall fuel savings per barrel is negligible if the speed limit were to be lowered back to the 55mph speed limit of 1975. In almost all measures of highway safety, statistics show improvement, not more deaths and injuries since 1995. Despite the fact that 33 states raised their speed limits immediately after the repeal of the mandatory federal speed limit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last October that "the traffic death rate dropped to a record low level in 1997." Moreover, the average fatality rate even fell in the states that raised their speed limits (Moore, 1999).
The U.S. Should NOT Intervene Militarily in the Conflict in Bosnia
Figure 3 – Complex Argument map of the Bosnian conflict
In Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, it requires that all members "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. Most importantly, member states agree to a broad prohibition against use of force: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.'' These words undoubtedly represent the basic norm of contemporary international law with respect to the use of force (Krylov, 1995).
With this in mind, there is a firm belief that the Bosnian conflict is a matter to be solved by the United Nations through negotiation and sanction and not by the use of force by the United States (Dunn, 2012); as such, the U.N. has imposed sanctions and is in negotiation with the major combatants in the Bosnian conflict. While some believe that the United States has nothing to gain by intervening in the conflict but as stated by (Dunn, 2012) Belgrade has missiles trained on Vienna. Yugoslavia claimed, by way of Macedonia, that northern Greece as far south as the Thessaloniki belonged under its sovereignty (Dunn, 2012). But as with any conflict where leaders believe that there is a threat to a way of life or the useless loss of life due to genocide such as in Nazi Germany in WWII emotions can run high. The belief that if ethnic purity as a basis for national sovereignty cannot be stopped here than it will lead to future civil wars to erupt elsewhere (Dunn, 2012).
Wars are fought primarily over interests, ideas, or insanity. These wars can be resolved only when interests are either satisfied or recognizably forfeit, the validity of ideas proven valid or invalid; or, and most demanding, insanity is exhausted and surrenders to logic. Generally states fight wars of interests, people fight wars of ideas, and both fight wars of insanity. The wars of Balkan secession were initiated by the interests of power held by only a few. Once started, the war became one of fear and an insane paranoia. The nationalist leaders were captive to their ideological basis and started a war that once initiated required resolution. The wars ended when the leaders recognized the culminating points for interest achievement based upon international intervention. But the futility of nationalism and the ideal of ethnic separation were not proven to the people; the war had not been fought to that point of exhaustion (Fisk, 2002).

References
Dunn, W.N. (2012). Public Policy Analysis: Graduate School of Public and International Affairs University of Pittsburgh 8th ed.
Fisk, K. (April, 2002). Failed Intervention: The United States in the Balkans. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA404493
Krylov, N. (February, 1995). Humanitarian Intervention: Pros and Cons. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=ilr
Moore, S. (May, 1999). Speed Doesn’t Kill. The Repeal of the 55-MPH Speed Limit. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-346es.html
Selingo, J. (October, 2008). An Old Refrain: Slow Down. The New York Times. Retrieved from Lower Speed Limit Would Be One Way to Save on Gas