Argument Mapping on Public Administration Matters
Question one
The U.S. should return to the 55-Mph speed limit in order to conserve fuel and save lives
reason reason assumption assumption
It will save fuel usage
Non-renewable energy
It saves life
No accidents
Freedom of driving in U.S
Reason assumption reason assumption
Infringement on individual freedom
Higher speeds more fatalities
Higher speed more fuel
Fewer accidents
Less fuel usage
Figure 1.1: Argument map on the return to 55-mph in the use to save fuel and life
Source: Author
The figure above shows an argument map for the return to 55-Mph speed limit in the U.S. From the arguments made, it is evident that numerous reasons have been associated with the maintenance of 55-Mph speed limit in the U.S. Nevertheless, the Americans are hateful of the limitation on speed limit. They argue that, ownership of vehicles is an indication of a self identity and therefore, there is no reason for the government to curtail citizens from driving at the speed of choice. The cars owned by Americans are seen as an extension of the individual person. They represent the individual identity and personal preferences for certain types of cars and speed. The American society has come to believe that the manner in which they drive their cars should exclusively be a matter of individual preference.
The argument against the limitation of the driving speed is a bone of contention throughout the American society. The critical thinkers in the society have a different opinion about the demand for freedom by the Americans in maintenance of driving speed of choice. The contention that the American society should go back to the former speed of 55-Mph is based on the fact that this will eventually save life and also fuel usage. It is painful to realize that the available non-renewable energy sources currently used by Americans are decreasing at an alarming rate. It is therefore upon all citizens to undertake measures that can lead to reductions in the fuel consumption by motor-vehicles.
The recommendation for speed reduction to 55mph is based on the fact that higher speeds are associated with high levels of fuel consumption. For instance, an increase in the speed limit of a Toyota Camry leads to dramatic increase in fuel consumption per mile. David Champion found that the gasoline consumption for a Toyota Camry is 40.3 miles per gallon at 55mph, 34.9 mile per gallon at 65mph, and 29.8 miles per gallon at75 mph. Based on these findings, it is evident if one was to cover 1,900 miles at 55mph, 47 gallons would be used. However, if cruising at 75mph, 64 gallons would be used. The difference in cost is $70. Therefore, a reduction in speed by just 10% countrywide would lead to savings of about 1 million gallons per day (Retting, 2008).
The fatalities associated with high speeds are just overwhelming. Records from institute studies portray an increase in the level of fatalities owing to the increase in speed limits from 55 to 65mph by 25-30%. Increase in the rural interstate allowed speed to 75mph from 65mph led to increase in fatalities by 38% per every million vehicle miles. This was an increase of 780 deaths. In the states with a new speed limit of 70mph, there was an increase in fatalities by 1,100. It no doubt, therefore, that reduction of speed back to 55mph leads to reduction in the number of fatalities (Castleman, 2009). Reducing the speed limits back to 55 mph has the best effect for the American society. Currently, there is need to reduce fuel consumption massively. At the same, the American roads have become massive killers. Only a speed limit of 55mph is the solution.
Question two
The U.S. should not intervene in the Balkans
Advantages disadvantages
No justification for U.S military action
Channel to fight terrorism
Peace and prosperity globally
It was bound to fail
Strain on U.S resources
Stability of the Balkans
The intervention of the U.S in various countries with troubled leadership and stability issues has been a source of continued debate and worry among many observers especially the American citizens. Questions have always been asked as to whether or not America is justified to always intervene in the many wrangles and troubles occurring in several countries globally. Although there have been multifarious criticisms about the intervention by America in the Balkans, there are various advantages too. As a superpower, America has to ensure that her interests have been upheld at all times in the world (Kinsley, 2012). It also has to ensure that its values are sustained and also all world leaders observe that human rights. Therefore, America has to do everything possible to ensure that the world is a safe and peaceful place for all humanity. However, there are many world leaders opposed to the United States and its objectives. Such leaders have perpetuated dictatorial leadership. There are others that have joined terrorism forces to wreck ha voc across the world such as the Alkaeda terrorist group. Such groups are dangerous for the world. They can only be overcome by a powerful force like America. The intervention of American in the Balkans led to realization of peace and stability as well as reduction of terrorism activities in the region.
Even in the midst of the positive benefits associated with the American intervention in the Balkans, several concerns have been raised against such undertakings. Critics have argued that the United States has continued to impose its authority on other nations of the world and behaving like a global policeman. The American involvement in the Balkans was viewed as a move doomed to fail and even risked an eruption of worse conflict in the area. The American resolve to adopt a totalitarianism policy abroad has been criticized as inappropriate as it also causes such totalitarianism back at home. Several American military interventions have been futile such as invasion in Haiti. Therefore, although America is a superpower, there is no guarantee that such interventions will be successful. In the wake of many military interventions by the U.S. globally, it is important to reconsider the fact that such moves are a major strain on the resources of the United States (Dieteman, 2001). Indeed, the strain caused on U.S. resources as a result of the intervention has led to reductions in the number of troops abroad. There is no forthright justification for the U.S to always intervene in other nations with leadership troubles. In fact, it absolutely wrong for the U.S. to always use intervention as an all-or-nothing measure. There are currently no logically set rules on how to undertake intervention measures by the U.S. Therefore, extraneous factors have been applied in making decisions on the use of force interventions.
Question three
The attitude of the American citizens about the continued U.S. government military interventions abroad has been against such moves. In the American citizens have always recorded mixed feelings about such moves by the government with the vast majority highly opposed to such military interventions. The Bosnia case is a complex scenario for an analyst due to the factors and circumstances surrounding the whole issue. There are various complexities around the Bosnia case such that confusion arises on the definition of internal and external actors. The intervention in Bosnia can be categorized into diverse forms such as political/ diploma tic peacekeeping in aim of establishing a solution, military/diploma tic peacekeeping with the aim of delivering humanitarian relief and later securing the maintenance of agreements reached by the parties involved (Conry, 1994). The military peace keeping was also aimed at ensuring the UN decisions undertaken without the participation of the parties in the conflict were observed.
There has been an increase in the number of regional conflicts since the end of the cold war; and the trend is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. The involvement of the U.S. in all these conflicts seems a huge task for the nation. Yet, the United States has several other objectives to fulfill with its available resources. Although the U.S. has consistently adopted military intervention in most regional conflicts, it is an ill-advised decision in many cases. The American military intervention in many regional conflicts is not an effective solution. By intervening in Bosnia, America would be preparing for failure and huge costs in terms of resources and human life. The complex nature of the Bosnia war would definitely have made it very difficult for the U.S. to successfully achieve any of its objectives. The war was three sided and was on the basis of religion and ancient ethnic issues. The artificial state of Bosnia-Hercegonia has never existed as a free state; multiethnic, independent is a very complex one.
The struggle between Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats cannot be possibly resolved easily through U.S. military intervention. Indeed, the three warring sides are not willing to give up on their objectives (Conry, 1994). They have continuously disregarded the calls for a compromise from the UN and NATO. The intervention of the U.S. military into Bosnia is therefore an exercise in futility. The fact that past mentions have not been successful is a warning. Similarly, the unrelenting nature of the warring parties does not give room for peace talks. It is therefore not the duty of the U.S. to strike lasting peace in Bosnia. The UN through NATO should undertake the mission to restore lasting peace and stability in Bosnia.
The conflict in Bosnia is somebody else’s trouble. U.S. should not intervene militarily
Past interventions failed
The Bosnia war is three-tier
It’s an exercise in futility
NATO and UN have failed
Castleman, T. (2009). 55MPH Speed Limit Makes Economic, Political, and Environmental Sense. U.S News. Retrieved on Monday, October 21, 2013 from
Conry, B. (1994). Policy Analysis: The Futility of U.S. Intervention in Regional Conflicts. Cato Policy Analysis No. 209. Retrieved on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 from
Dieteman, D. (2001). Why U.S. Intervention Can Never Fix the Balkans, or , A Man Is Not a Machine. Retrieved on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 from
Kinsley, M. (2012). One Simple Rule for U.S. Military Intervention. Retrieved on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 from
Retting, R.A., Farmer, C.M. & McCartt, A.T. (2008). Evaluation of Automated Speed Enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland. Traffic Injury Prevention, 9(5); 440-445.

20% OFF Your 1st Order. Use the code: SAVE20 - Order Now Dismiss