Argument Mapping - The Basics

Argument Mapping - The Basics
based on the heuristics and Rationale software developed by Austhink

*Author's Note: Although this guideline does not delve into the pros and cons of argument mapping, it does give a good idea of how to construct an argument map - whether you are using this particular software, or if you are making an argument map with pencil and paper.

Summary:

The "Argument Mapping - The Basics" sheets provide the reader with a outline of understanding for what argument mapping is, the terms used in argument mapping and logic, as well as some important rules of logic that you must keep in mind when structuring an argument map. Argument maps start with a conclusion, which is at the tip of the pyramidal hierarchy, with reasons and objections listed below the conclusion. Reasons can have co-premises, and co-premises can have other reasons to support the claim listed above. Co-premises can also work together to support particular reasoning. Objections are listed to oppose the conclusion or reason and can have rebuttals listed underneath the objections.

Similar to games of strategy (chess, risk, etc.), there appears to be a learning curve with argument mapping. It takes some time to get the 'feel' of the game and to fully understand the rules, but with time, the process become quick and effortless.

Important information within the document:

Definition of Argument Mapping: "Argument mapping is a way to visually show the logical structure of arguments. You break up an argument into its constituent claims, and use lines, boxes, colors and location to indicate the relationships between the various parts. The resulting map allows us to see exactly how each part of an argument is related to every other part."

Other important definitions to know when creating argument maps:

• Argument: a claim and reason(s) to believe that that claim is true.
• Simple argument: the building block of all arguments, consisting of one claim and one reason (with two or more co-premises).
  
• Complex argument: has several simple arguments linked together (the diagram below illustrates a complex argument)
  
• Conclusion: the main point an argument is trying to prove, usually a belief. Also called the position, the main claim, the issue at hand.
• Reason: evidence given to support the conclusion.
• Co-premise: the subset of a reason. Every reason has at least two co-premises, and each of these co-premises must be true for the reason to support the claim.
• Objection: a ‘reason’ that a claim is false; evidence against a claim
• Rebuttal: an objection to an objection.

Syntax of an Argument Map:


Of note:

• Arguments can have many claims, many reasons, many objections and rebuttals, but only one conclusion.
• Distinguish a claim with a single reason (made up of two co-premises) from a claim with two independent reasons.
• The exact structure of an argument is very important. For example, if side A has two good reasons to conclude something, and their opponent (side B) thinks one of those reasons is bad, then A’s conclusion may still be true/warranted if the remaining, unobjected-to reason is convincing.
• An argument map can represent a debate by showing exactly where two sides disagree on the issue.
  
• Argument maps show the structure of the argument/debate – every box is not necessarily true, but the first step is to understand the structure of the argument.

Rules within each box:

• Declarative Sentence: Each box should have a full sentence (not a phrase) and should be declaring something, taking a position (whether it is true or false).
• No Reasoning: No box should have reasoning going on inside it, only single claims. The reasoning is represented by the arrows and locations in the map. Look for words that indicate reasoning (e.g. because) and translate the reasoning into the map.
• Two Terms: Each box can only have two main terms, so that each box is either true or false, not both. If you have more than two terms in a single box, separate them into multiple boxes.

Rules within each simple argument:

• Assertibility Question: All reasons for claims must answer the question: “How do we know that [insert specific claim here] is true/warranted?” You are asking what evidence allows one to assert that the claim is true. Every claim box should have a reason box below it that answers this question.
• Holding Hands: Applied horizontally within each simple argument. Within each reason, a term stated in one co-premise must be mentioned in one of the other co-premises in that same reason (if it is not in the claim above it – see the Rabbit Rule below). The terms must ‘hold hands’ within a single reason if they are not already accounted for by the Rabbit Rule.
• Rabbit Rule: Applied vertically, between a claim and each of its reasons, and is combined with the Holding Hands rule. “You can’t pull a rabbit out of a hat.” Using these two rules for each simple argument, you make sure that every term mentioned in each box is found in one of the others.
  

Enhancing our Grasp of Complex Arguments

Enhancing our Grasp of Complex Arguments
By Paul Monk and Tim van Gelder
This paper was presented by Paul Monk as a plenary address to the 2004 Fenner Conference on the Environment, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 24 May 2004

Summary:

What argument mapping is used for:

• To structure, communicate, and correct arguments of any degree of complexity
• To govern deliberation, keeping it on task, target use of evidence, specify disagreements, and make the process more efficient
  

Verbiage tends to make people miss what is being said and asked and encourages people to grasp tightly to their own thoughts. Monk and van Gelder posit that the use of only language, writing processes, and mental cues are too primitive to completely understand the complex arguments that people are now faced with. They continue by stating, “We conduct complex arguments as if a combination of holistic apprehension, intuitive judgment and natural language were sufficient for handling them [arguments]. None of us, I think, would consciously make that claim. We do what we do by tradition and by default, not because we have thought through why we do it, how it works and whether it serves us well.”

Playing the game of tic-tac-toe (on a 4x4 grid or larger) without using actual gridlines is used to illustrate the point that our working memory struggles without the presence of a visual aid (the grid). Cognitive blind spots and biases, the methods used to record and communicate arguments, and separation of disciplines due to different idiolects all accentuate the problem of our limited working memory.

Just as maps and charts allow us to navigate land and sea with more ease than an oral explanation, a map can help us visualize and navigate through problems and arguments. To map an argument, you must start with a proposition, or chief contention – this contention is entered into a white box and placed at the top of an argument map. Supporting claims are color-coded green, while objections are coded red. Claims are organized in a pyramidal hierarchy to maximize the appearance of evidential and logical relationships. The first set of claims (top level) begs the question “what are the distinct arguments provided for the main point (the chief contention)?” Subsequent levels are asked, “Do they support all of these primary arguments with further evidence? [and] Do they countenance any objections to their argument and rebut them?

The authors use the article Coalition of the Willing? Make That War Criminals, which discusses whether or not a preemptive strike on Iraq would constitute a crime against humanity, to demonstrate how argument mapping is useful. (See Image Below)


Advantages of argument mapping over prose:

1. It makes explicit logical relationships that the linearity and abstractness of prose cannot help but obscure.
2. The map offers an instant and effortless scan-ability of the overall structure of the argument, which you simply cannot derive from prose.
3. There is an ease of movement from the detail to the overview that is far more difficult in the case of prose.
   
4. There are unambiguous visual clues as to the significance that particular details have, due to the hierarchical ordering of the structure, the color-coding of the individual boxes and the inferential relations between boxes.
5. A map offers a visual clarity as to the limits of a debate, whereas prose obscures these limits or labors to spell them out.
6. The cognitive burden imposed on us by the task of analyzing a piece of prose is drastically reduced in the case of a map, for the same reasons that it is reduced in moving from a prose description of London to a map.
7. For any given proposition, all claims are integrated into a single structure, instead of consisting of various component parts, which then have to be assembled by whoever happens to be trying to comprehend the argument in question.
   

*Author’s Note: Tim van Gelder has done extensive research in the field of argument mapping and is the leading mind behind Reason!Able, a computer program designed for argument mapping. Reason!Able has now evolved into Rationale. See Video Below.