5.4 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argument map | 1/4 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T14:44:34.364572+00:00 | kb-cron |
An argument map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument. An argument map typically includes all the key components of the argument, traditionally called the conclusion and the premises, also called contention and reasons. Argument maps can also show co-premises, objections, counterarguments, rebuttals, inferences, and lemmas. There are different styles of argument map but they are often functionally equivalent and represent an argument's individual claims and the relationships between them. Argument maps are commonly used in the context of teaching and applying critical thinking. The purpose of mapping is to uncover the logical structure of arguments, identify unstated assumptions, evaluate the support an argument offers for a conclusion, and aid understanding of debates. Argument maps are often designed to support deliberation of issues, ideas and arguments in wicked problems. An argument map is not to be confused with a concept map or a mind map, two other kinds of node–link diagram which have different constraints on nodes and links.
== Key features == A number of different kinds of argument maps have been proposed but the most common, which Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe called the standard diagram, consists of a tree structure with each of the reasons leading to the conclusion. There is no consensus as to whether the conclusion should be at the top of the tree with the reasons leading up to it or whether it should be at the bottom with the reasons leading down to it. Another variation diagrams an argument from left to right. According to Douglas N. Walton and colleagues, an argument map has two basic components: "One component is a set of circled numbers arrayed as points. Each number represents a proposition (premise or conclusion) in the argument being diagrammed. The other component is a set of lines or arrows joining the points. Each line (arrow) represents an inference. The whole network of points and lines represents a kind of overview of the reasoning in the given argument..." With the introduction of software for producing argument maps, it has become common for argument maps to consist of boxes containing the actual propositions rather than numbers referencing those propositions. There is disagreement on the terminology to be used when describing argument maps, but the standard diagram contains the following structures: dependent premises, independent premises, and intermediate conclusions. Dependent premises or co-premises, where at least one of the joined premises requires another premise before it can give support to the conclusion: An argument with this structure has been called a linked argument.
Independent premises, where the premise can support the conclusion on its own: Although independent premises may jointly make the conclusion more convincing, this is to be distinguished from situations where a premise gives no support unless it is joined to another premise. Where several premises or groups of premises lead to a final conclusion the argument might be described as convergent. This is distinguished from a divergent argument where a single premise might be used to support two separate conclusions.
Intermediate conclusions or sub-conclusions, where a claim is supported by another claim that is used in turn to support some further claim, i.e. the final conclusion or another intermediate conclusion: In the following diagram, statement 4 is an intermediate conclusion in that it is a conclusion in relation to statement 5 but is a premise in relation to the final conclusion, i.e. statement 1. An argument with this structure is sometimes called a complex argument. If there is a single chain of claims containing at least one intermediate conclusion, the argument is sometimes described as a serial argument or a chain argument.
Each of these structures can be represented by the equivalent "box and line" approach to argument maps. In the following diagram, the contention is shown at the top, and the boxes linked to it represent supporting reasons, which comprise one or more premises. The green arrow indicates that the two reasons support the contention:
Argument maps can also represent counterarguments. In the following diagram, the two objections weaken the contention, while the reasons support the premise of the objection:
Some argument mapping conventions allow for perspicuous representation of inferences. In the following diagram, box 2.1 represents an inference, labeled with the inference rule modus ponens.
An inference can be the target of an objection. Such inference objections highlight invalid or weak inferences. In the diagram below, B is the premise, A is the conclusion, and C is an objection to the inference from A to B.
== Representing an argument as an argument map ==
=== Diagramming written text === A written text can be transformed into an argument map by following a sequence of steps. Monroe Beardsley's 1950 book Practical Logic recommended the following procedure:
Separate statements by brackets and number them. Put circles around the logical indicators. Supply, in parentheses, any logical indicators that are left out. Set out the statements in a diagram in which arrows show the relationships between statements.
Beardsley gave the first example of a text being analysed in this way: