The role of argument mapping in structuring policy
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
The role of argument mapping in structuring policy
Another way to represent problems is to use the argument mapping methods introduced earlier in this chapter (Figure 1.3). The role of argument mapping in structuring policy discourses may be illustrated by Graham Allison’s well-known study of foreign policy decision-making during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962.55 Showing how different explanatory models yield different conclusions, Allison argues that government policy analysts use implicit conceptual models to think about and make policy recommendations. These conceptual models explain the behavior of governments in terms that assume the rationality of political choices (rational actor model), the inertia created by organizational processes (organizational process model), and the effects of bureaucratic politics (bureaucratic politics model). Each of these models provides its own explanation of policymaking.
In 1962, the policy alternatives open to the United States in responding to the crisis ranged from no action and diplomatic pressure to secret negotiations, invasion, surgical air strikes, and blockade. Among the several claims made at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, let us consider the policy actually adopted by the United States: “The United States should blockade Cuba.” In this case, the policy-relevant knowledge (I) is “The Soviet Union is placing offensive missiles in Cuba.” The warrant states that “the blockade will force the withdrawal of missiles by showing the Russians that the United States is determined to use force.” In providing reasons to accept the warrant, the backing (B) supports the warrant by stating that “an increase in the cost of an alternative reduces the likelihood of that alternative being chosen.”56 The backing (B) represents a general theoretical proposition, or law, within the rational policy model. After the objection (O) has successfully challenged the warrant, the qualifier (Q) changes from absolutely to doubtful.
Allison’s account shows how the use of multiple competing explanations can facilitate critical thinking. The use of multiple competing models moves the analysis from a simple uncontested argument (Figure C1.3.1) to a new argument which is complex, contested, and dynamic (Figure C1.3.2). This change occurs because a serious objection has been raised about the warrant and the backing of the claim. The objection states: “But Soviet leaders may fail to convince their naval units to depart from established organizational routines.” The warrant for this objection is: “The bulk of research on organizations shows that major lines of organizational behavior tend to be straight. Behavior at time t + 1 differs little from behavior at time t.57 The blockade will not work.” The warrant for the objection is again a general proposition or law within the organizational process model, otherwise known as the disjointed incremental theory of policy change.
Simple uncontested maps of arguments about the OPEC oil embargo are presented alongside arguments about the Cuban missile crisis (Figures C1.3.1[a] and [b]). The comparisons show that the simple argument maps tend to result in uncritical thinking. By contrast, the complex, dynamic, and contested maps of the same crises (Figures C1.3.2[a] and [b]) illustrate what is meant by critical thinking.
Figure C1.3.1 Simple Argument Maps Are Static and Uncontested
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!