{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016314779270633396, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.51875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Extending Argument Maps to Provide Decision Support for Rulemaking

Argument maps are one possible type of tool for engaging citizens in government policymaking, but they currently lack features to assist with making decisions on specific policies. This paper investigates the question of how argument maps can be enhanced for this purpose. A case study was conducted of public comments submitted in response to a proposed rule regarding health insurance cooperatives. An argument map was created from these sources, and some creation guidelines are suggested. Three decision techniques were evaluated for one issue: multi-attribute utility theory, Franklin's method, and uncertainty analysis. A variant of Franklin's method was selected and combined with the argument map to produce an integrated decision support design. The design represents weights both numerically and visually, allowing the user to dynamically adjust weights relative to those of other arguments. Design walkthroughs provided generally positive reactions to the design.