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