From the case study, Case 1.3, compare and contrast the benefits of the influence diagram and decision tree displayed in Figure C1.3. Explain why these two problem representations are good examples of descriptive and normative decision theory. Refer to your first discussion’s answer and analyze the differences between monitoring and evaluation in policy analysis. Provide at least one example to support your response. Along with other policy-analytic methods discussed earlier in this chapter (Figure 1.1), the influence diagram and decision tree are useful tools for structuring policy problems.52 The influence diagram (Figure C1.3) displays the policy, the National Maximum Speed Limit, as a rectangle. A rectangle always refers to a policy choice or decision node, which in this case is the choice between adopting and not adopting the national maximum speed limit of 55 mph. To the right and above the decision node are uncertain events, represented as ovals, which are connected to the decision node with arrows showing how the speed limit affects or is affected by them. The rectangles with shaved corners represent valued policy outcomes or objectives. The objectives are to lower fuel consumption, reduce travel time, reduce injuries, and avert traffic fatalities. To the right of the objectives is another shaved rectangle, which designates the net benefits (benefits less costs) of the four objectives. The surprising result of using the influence diagram for problem structuring is the discovery of causally relevant economic events, such as the recession and unemployment, which affect miles driven, which in turn affect all four objectives. The “root cause” appears to be the OPEC oil embargo. discussion 2 From the case studies, Case 1.1 and Case 1.2, discuss the strengths and limitations of using multiple triangulation, also called critical multiplism. Provide at least one example to support your answer. Propose two reasons argumentation mapping can help a policy maker become a critical thinker. Provide at least two examples to support your response. When advanced technologies are used to achieve policy goals, sociotechnical systems of considerable complexity is created. Although it is analytically tempting to prepare a comprehensive economic analysis of the costs and benefits of such policies, most practicing analysts do not have the time or the resources to do so. Given the time constraints of policy making, many analyses are completed in a period of several days to a month, and in most cases policy analyses do not involve the collection and analysis of new data. Early on in a project, policy makers and their staffs typically want an overview of the problem situation and the potential impacts of alternative policies. Under these circumstances, the scorecard is appropriate. The Goeller scorecard, named after Bruce Goeller of the RAN D Corporation, is appropriate for this purpose. Table C1.1 shows the impacts of alternative transportation systems. Some.

1. From the case study, Case 1.3, compare and contrast the
benefits of the influence diagram and decision tree displayed in
Figure C1.3. Explain why these two problem representations are
good examples of descriptive and normative decision theory.
Refer to your first discussion’s answer and analyze the
differences between monitoring and evaluation in policy
analysis. Provide at least one example to support your response.
Along with other policy-analytic methods discussed earlier in
this chapter (Figure 1.1), the influence diagram and decision
tree are useful tools for structuring policy problems.52 The
influence diagram (Figure C1.3) displays the policy, the
National Maximum Speed Limit, as a rectangle. A rectangle
always refers to a policy choice or decision node, which in this
case is the choice between adopting and not adopting the
national maximum speed limit of 55 mph. To the right and
above the decision node are uncertain events, represented as
ovals, which are connected to the decision node with arrows
showing how the speed limit affects or is affected by them. The
rectangles with shaved corners represent valued policy
outcomes or objectives. The objectives are to lower fuel
consumption, reduce travel time, reduce injuries, and avert
traffic fatalities. To the right of the objectives is another shaved
rectangle, which designates the net benefits (benefits less costs)
of the four objectives. The surprising result of using the
influence diagram for problem structuring is the discovery of
causally relevant economic events, such as the recession and
unemployment, which affect miles driven, which in turn affect
all four objectives. The “root cause” appears to be the OPEC oil
embargo.
discussion 2
From the case studies, Case 1.1 and Case 1.2, discuss the
strengths and limitations of using multiple triangulation, also
called critical multiplism. Provide at least one example to
support your answer.

2. Propose two reasons argumentation mapping can help a policy
maker become a critical thinker. Provide at least two examples
to support your response.
When advanced technologies are used to achieve policy goals,
sociotechnical systems of considerable complexity is created.
Although it is analytically tempting to prepare a comprehensive
economic analysis of the costs and benefits of such policies,
most practicing analysts do not have the time or the resources to
do so. Given the time constraints of policy making, many
analyses are completed in a period of several days to a month,
and in most cases policy analyses do not involve the collection
and analysis of new data. Early on in a project, policy makers
and their staffs typically want an overview of the problem
situation and the potential impacts of alternative policies. Under
these circumstances, the scorecard is appropriate.
The Goeller scorecard, named after Bruce Goeller of the RAN D
Corporation, is appropriate for this purpose. Table C1.1 shows
the impacts of alternative transportation systems. Some of the
impacts involve transportation services used by members of the
community, whereas others involve impacts on low-income
groups. In this case, as Quade observes, the large number of
diverse impacts are difficult to value in dollar terms, making a
benefit-cost analysis impractical and even impossible.50 Other
impacts involve financial and economic questions such as
investments, jobs created, sales, and tax revenues. Other
impacts are distributional because they involve the differential
effects of transportation. ■
TABLE C1.1
Scorecard
Social Impacts CTOL VTOL TACV
TRANSPORTATION
Passengers (million miles) 7 4 9
Per trip time (hours) 2 1.5 2.5
Per trip cost ($) $17 $28 $20
Reduced congestion (%) 0% 5% 10%

3. FINANCIAL
Investment ($ millions) $150 $200 $200
Annual subsidy ($ millions) 0 0 90
ECONOMIC
Added jobs (thousands) 20 25 100
Added sales ($millions) 50 88 500
COMMUNITY
Noise (households) 10 1 20
Added air pollution (%) 3% 9% 1%
Petroleum savings (%) 0% −20% 30%
Displaced households 0 20 500
Taxes lost ($millions) 0 0.2 2
Landmarks destroyed None None Fort X
DISTRIBUTIONAL
Low-income trips (%) 7% 1% 20%
Low-income household
Noise annoyance (%) 2% 16% 40%
Source: Goeller (1974); Quade, Analysis for Public Decisions
(C1.2)
In 1972 and 1973, the United States and other petroleum-
dependent countries experienced the first of several oil crises
precipitated by a dramatic increase in the price of crude oil by
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
The response of American and European leaders was to adopt
maximum speed limits of 55 mph and 90 kph, respectively. In
the United States, the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL)
was designed to reduce the consumption of gasoline by
requiring that all vehicles on interstate highways travel at a
maximum of 55 mph, a speed that would maximize fuel
efficiency for most vehicles.
Soon after the implementation of the 55 mph speed limit, it was
discovered that the new policy not only reduced fuel
consumption, but apparently caused a dramatic decline in traffic
fatalities and injuries as well. Therefore, long after the OPEC

4. oil crisis was over, the speed limit was retained, although it was
no longer needed to respond to the energy crisis that prompted
its passage in 1973. Indeed, the 55 mph speed limit was retained
for more than 20 years until it was officially repealed in
November 1995.51
Heated debates preceded the repeal. Senator John C. Danforth
of Missouri, an influential advocate of the policy, argued that
the repeal would save one minute per day per driver but result
in an additional 600 to 1,000 deaths. The Washington Post and
the New York Times joined the opposition, reporting that,
although fatalities would surely rise, the savings in time was
trivial. Later, Secretary of Transportation Pena announced that
the Clinton administration was firmly opposed to abandoning
the speed limit.
This was the right moment for an evaluation of the benefits and
costs of the N M S L. A spreadsheet is a simple but powerful
tool for doing so. The scorecard, as we saw in Case 1.1, is a
useful tool for monitoring and forecasting impacts when
benefit-cost analysis is not feasible or desirable. On the
scorecard, policy alternatives are arrayed in columns along the
top of the matrix and policy impacts are listed in each row.
Spreadsheets, by contrast, are appropriate and useful for
prescribing preferred policies and evaluating their outcomes.
Spreadsheets display the benefits and costs of observed or
expected policy outcomes, creating information about policy
performance as well as preferred policies (see Figure 1.1).
Table C1.2 displays a spreadsheet used to evaluate the effects of
the 55 mph speed limit at the end of 1974, one year after the
policy was implemented. To show the differences between the
spreadsheet and the scorecard, Table C1.2 also displays the
same information as a scorecard. ■