Argument Map and word document

 
 

This assignment is going to build on Assignments 1 and 2 and the feedback you received from your instructor. You will be crafting an argument that addresses potential obstacles to effectively applying EEBDM (from Week 6) as they relate to your project topic. Essentially, you will be making this argument: Conflicts that arise could affect my use of EEBDM. 

Step 1: Begin constructing your argument map using claim 1.1: Conflicts that arise could affect my use of EEBDM. 

Step 2: Identify 3 conflicts mentioned in Week 6 that could pop up and affect your use of EEBDM. Here are the options:

• Ethics conflicts with evidence
• The need for evidence conflicts with situational constraints (e.g., time pressure)
• Some evidence conflicts with other evidence
• One ethical obligation conflicts with another
• One stakeholder group’s needs/wants conflict with those of another stakeholder group’s (a special case of the previous item in the list according to stakeholder theory)
• What the evidence says conflicts with how people feel about the issue
• Evidence-based conclusions conflict with the agendas of relevant influencers.

Step 3: Identify why each of the conflicts you identified in Step 1 could affect your use of EEBDM (i.e., why each might have an adverse effect on your use of EEBDM). These will form the 2.x level of your argument map (along with any needed siblings/co-premises). 

Step 4. Provide any additional explanation why for each of those conflicts. These will form relevant premises below the 2.x level (see 3.1 and 3.2 in the example map below).

Step 5.  Identify ways to reduce the effect of each conflict. These will form the cornerstone of your rebuttals. Note that this is one argument where hanging rebuttals are called for (see 4.1, 5.3, 5.4, and 4.7 in the example map).

Step 6. Add sticky notes to relevant parts of your argument map to identify where course content informs your argument (see multiple examples in assignment example). Your argument map is required to include a minimum of 5 citations of course content.

Step 7. Finalize your map and download it as both a pdf and as an image (png or jpeg only) file (you must do each separately).

Step 8. Construct your assignment in Word using the format below.

1. Brief Introduction of Topic: Copied and pasted from Assignment 2
2. Decision Statement: Copied and pasted from Assignment 2
3. Sources/Types of Evidence: This should be provided as a Table in this section. Simply list each source of evidence used (e.g., stakeholder, scientific), the type of evidence (e.g., factual, statistical), and its role in informing the decision. (This is essentially a summary from Section C of Assignment 2, along with any tweaks you made based on instructor feedback. High-quality formats for the table can be found in the 2 example assignments.)
4.  Argument Map embedded as an image file (downloaded in Step 7)
5. Decision-Making Conflicts: List each conflict and explain the reason why it could affect your use of EEBDM (e.g., Conflict 1: …, Conflict 2: …)
6. Reducing the Adverse Effect of Conflicts: List each conflict and explain how you will reduce the potential for it to have an adverse effect (e.g., Conflict 1: Explanation for reducing conflict, Conflict 2: Explanation for reducing conflict)
7. References (APA-formatted references constructed using Citation Machine). You are required to have a minimum of 5 course-specific references that were also cited in the map and text. 

Step 9. Submit both the Word version from Step 8 AND the pdf of just the argument map (from Step 7) as the assignment documents. 

• The Word document should be no more than 5 total pages of text written in Times New Roman 12-point font, double spaced.
• Note that the page maximum excludes title page, references, tables, and figures (including the argument map figure). Points may be deducted for failure to conform to the formatting requirements.

Because

Because

But

Because Because

Because

Because

Because

But

Because

Because

Because

Conflict that arise
could affect my use of
EEBDM.

1.1

Conflict among
evidence could make
it difficult to identify a
choice that meets all
my criteria.

2.1

I am attempting to
balance fuel
efficiency, reliability,
aesthetics, and other
criteria.

3.1

No car is likely to be
ideal on all criteria.

3.2

I should be focused
on making a satificing
choice.

4.1

I can prioritize my
criteria and create a
decision tree to
sequentially lead to a
final choice.

5.1

I can use aesthetics
or subjective
preference to make
my final choice.

5.2 Mini-lecture 1.2

Conflicts among
stakeholder interests
may make it difficult
to identify a choice
that satisfies
stakeholders.

2.2

My wants/
preferences may
conflict with my wife’s
wants/preferences.

3.3

My final choice of
desired car may not
meet her
specification.

4.2

I can address this in a
way that eliminates
the possible conflict.

5.3

We can agree ahead
of time which of her
constraints must be
met (e.g., ability to
well enough, what
level of comfort is
required).

6.1

Mini-lecture 6..1

Conflict in the
purchasing decision
could result in
relationship conflict

4.3

My interests may
conflict with the
interests of dealers.

3.4

Car dealers are not
necessarily
prioritizing the same
outcomes I am.

4.4

There is a potential
conflict between my
criteria/values and
their criteria/values.

4.5

The conflict could
create pressure to put
my criteria aside in
favor of theirs.

4.6

I can address this by
ensuring I have clear
criteria and
established
constraints around
my choices.

5.4

This should make me
less susceptible to
sales pressure.

6.2 Reddi (2023)

Simon (2016)

Conflicts between the
need for evidence
and time pressure
could cause me to
buy a car with less
vetting

2.3

My current car may
start having problems
before I can fully
assess options.

3.5

This could mean I
sacrifice accuracy for
speed.

3.6

I can apply the 37%
rule or some
adaptation to identify
a satisficing choice
fairly quickly.

4.7

Thomas (2022)

Mini-lecture 6.1