Argument map

[4] 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,[5] consists of a tree structure with each of the reasons leading to the conclusion.

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.

Statement ④ needs to be rewritten as a declarative sentence, e.g. "Academic monstrosities [were] produced by the official Nazi painters."

Legal philosopher and theorist John Henry Wigmore produced maps of legal arguments using numbered premises in the early 20th century,[20] based in part on the ideas of 19th century philosopher Henry Sidgwick who used lines to indicate relations between terms.

There is no theory, in other words, of inference distinguished from logical deduction, the passage is always deemed not controversial and not subject to support and evaluation".

[25] Toulmin introduced the concept of warrant which "can be considered as representing the reasons behind the inference, the backing that authorizes the link".

[26] Beardsley's approach was refined by Stephen N. Thomas, whose 1973 book Practical Reasoning In Natural Language[27] introduced the term linked to describe arguments where the premises necessarily worked together to support the conclusion.

[28] The introduction of the linked structure made it possible for argument maps to represent missing or "hidden" premises.

Missing premises (unstated assumptions) were to be included and indicated with an alphabetical letter instead of a number to mark them off from the explicit statements.

[33] Human–computer interaction pioneer Douglas Engelbart, in a famous 1962 technical report on intelligence augmentation, envisioned in detail something like argument-mapping software as an integral part of future intelligence-augmenting computer interfaces:[37] You usually think of an argument as a serial sequence of steps of reason, beginning with known facts, assumptions, etc., and progressing toward a conclusion.

Once the antecedent-consequent links have been established, the computer can automatically construct such a display for us.In the middle to late 1980s, hypertext software applications that supported argument visualization were developed, including NoteCards and gIBIS; the latter generated an on-screen graphical hypertextual map of an issue-based information system, a model of argumentation developed by Werner Kunz and Horst Rittel in the 1970s.

[38] In the 1990s, Tim van Gelder and colleagues developed a series of software applications that permitted an argument map's premises to be fully stated and edited in the diagram, rather than in a legend.

[41] In a 2010 survey of computer-supported argumentation, Oliver Scheuer and colleagues noted that one of the differences between these software systems is whether collaboration is supported.

[44] As of 2020, the commercial website Kialo is the most widely adopted argumentation-based deliberation system with an argument-map interface.

In branches beneath the top level, users can likewise rank the impact any individual argument has on the claim above it.

[47] In the context of historical-political education, researcher Oliver Held identified at least five key components of historical judgment that can be implemented easily in Kialo: perspectivity, levels of relevance, interdependence, multi-causality and assessments.

[48] Argument maps have been applied in many areas, but foremost in educational, academic and business settings, including design rationale.

[51] It has also been proposed that argument mapping has a great potential to improve how we understand and execute democracy, in reference to the ongoing evolution of e-democracy.

[53] For example, instruction in argument mapping has been shown to improve the critical thinking skills of business students.

[56] A 2022 blog post noted that "Kialo's simplicity does pose some weaknesses and limitations, and in general current [computer-supported argument visualization] systems cannot reliably automate analysis or synthesis of arguments in the same way that statistical packages can automate analysis of data".

[58] Argumentation.io is a web-based argument mapping app that claims to meet American university accessibility requirements.

[59] AIF-RDF is the extended ontology represented in the Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS) semantic language.

A schematic argument map showing a contention (or conclusion), supporting arguments and objections, and an inference objection
Statements 1 and 2 are dependent premises or co-premises.
Statements 2, 3, 4 are independent premises.
Statement 4 is an intermediate conclusion or sub-conclusion.
A box and line diagram
A sample argument using objections
An argument map with 'modus ponens' in the inference box.
Argument map of an inference objection.
A diagram of the example from Beardsley's Practical Logic
A box and line diagram of Beardsley's example, produced using Harrell's procedure
From Whately's Elements of Logic p467, 1852 edition
Wigmore evidence chart, from 1905
A Toulmin argument diagram , redrawn from his 1959 Uses of Argument
A generalised Toulmin diagram
Scriven's argument diagram. The explicit premise 1 is conjoined with additional unstated premises a and b to imply 2.
The argument map tree schema of Kialo with an example path through it: all Con-argument boxes and some Pros were emptied to illustrate an example path. [ 34 ]
A partial argument tree with claims and impact votes for arguments illustrates one form of collective determination of argument weights that is based on equal-weight user voting. [ 35 ] There is research into how to efficiently calculate the winning arguments or arguments' weights and the overall conclusions in digital argument map systems. [ 36 ]