PAD 520 Argument mapping

Argument mapping

Name

Instructor

School

Date due

Argument Mapping

Argument mapping is a representation that is used to break up a statement or a fact in to simple ideas represented in form of diagrams. In argument mapping there must be short ideas which are related and are joined together to support the main point. They are later represented to form an argument map. This form of representation of data is mostly common when teaching and in cases where learners need to think critically .It is essential in giving all the available assumptions that may have been left out therefore helping in making decisions and resolving disagreements between parties. In addition, argument mapping gives more evidence to the statement (Van Gelder, 2002).

In the study case 1.3 of the influence diagram it says that the United States government should go back to the 50 mph speed limit in order to conserve the amount of fuel used and reduce accidents. Use of a speed limit of 50 mph will be very effective to every individual. It will reduce the amount of time that is spent in traffic congestions. Cases of accidents where many people may be injured are rare when the speed is reduced to 50 mph; Additionally, using a speed limit of 50 mph will reduce the death rate which happen most frequently due over speeding (Huff, 2003).

Implementation of the speed limit in the United States of America called for many reactions. Many people trying to oppose the idea and thus delaying policy making. There arose many debates led by different government leaders and advocates. This led to the oppossers calculating all the benefits and the losses of the policy. In 1973, the president Nixon gave a state order that the speed limit should be 55 mph as the maximum limit. The traffic police were given mandate to issue warrants on those who fail to follow the order and fined heavily (Gelder, 2002).

Argument mapping is a form of representation that follows a certain procedure on its presentation. Exercise 4 chapters 8 for criterion 5-7 the order is followed. The first thing done is identifying all the advantages and the disadvantages that the government of America would get from the war with Balkans. The advantages of the United States government to intervene in the war includes, maintaining fame to other countries and preventing ethnic wars within the country. The disadvantages included death of the militaries and destruction of wealth. The second step is to make the aim of the argument. The government of America can identify one advantage of the war in Balkans and evaluate whether it is worth fighting for. The other essential step is identifying the supporting reasons for the war. In conclusion, the points given are put down as an argument map which can be through use of boxes where lines are used to show the supporting ideas while the arrows join the main conclusion ( Huff et al, 2003).

Argument map

Bosnia war took place in Europe whereby it left many individual in coverage. This model portrays many issues from the political side whereby nationalist ideology is the key element in violence. United States had much pressure on Bosnia in order to strengthen the economic status of Serbia. The claim is the first step of the argument map whereby there was ethnic conflict between the two countries. Secondly on the argument map is information which is data collected about the war. The information was collected from various sources in order to understand the reason behind the Bosnia trouble. In addition, 1b contains warrant in order to support the claims against the war (Fletcher et al. 2003).

There are also qualifiers which show how confidence the party is against the other. There must be objection in any claim therefore from the United States claim; there rose many objections against the Bosnia troubles. They provided major concession on the Serbs in order to make comparisons to the actual provisions. There is backing of the claim whereby the Bosnia had hard time on the plan. There was limited communication because of insecurity and were surrounded by enemies. This gave Bosnia many problems even when the parties had agreed to solve the war (Fletcher et al. 2003).

Critical Thinking on Bosnia’s war

Bosnia war involved Bosnia and Yugoslavia which happened in the 1990s. It was a territorial conflict that resulted into war between the two countries. The war started when Bosnia stated that there was no independence from Yugoslavia in 1992. This initiated a war that lasted over three years. The European government should not intervene in the war this is because of various reasons including the fact that Bosnia is an independent country and it should fully be responsible with it issues (Hansen, 2013).

The United States government was not involved in the conflict. The United States government is not gaining anything from the conflict between the two countries. This is an essential reason as to why the government should not take part; being involved in the fight would mean the government is interested with something from the war. The role of calming the war is for the parties involved that is Bosnia and Yugoslavia (Fletcher et al. 2003).

Involving the third party would increase the war. If the United States government happened to take part in the war the war would just become large making it hard to solve and make peace. The parties in conflict are the only ones supposed to solve their conflicts and find ways of resolving the disagreements. The Bosnia war took three years without intervention which would be prolonged if the America’s government would join in. Prolonged war would cause high numbers of people to be killed and a lot of wealth destroyed.

In conclusion, the parties in conflict should be willing to stop the war. The two countries should be willing to come together and solve the conflict that was causing the war. Without the will of the two parties even the third party negotiation or intervention would make no sense to stopping the war. United States should not intervene militarily. If need be they should offer negotiations trying to unite the two parties without getting involved in the fight (Fletcher et al. 2003).

References

Van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with reason! able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85-90.

Fletcher, K. E., & Huff, A. S. (2003). Argument mapping. Mapping strategic thought, 355-369.

Hansen, L. (2013). Security as practice: discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. Routledge.