One procedure of Path mapping with Rationale is to chain the co-premises up a vertical inference path rather than placing them horizontally within the green box background. But Path mapping is more than this visual convention. The Path argument schema is based on a fundamental structure of argument consisting of an inference path of interlocked sentences such that the predicate of one sentence is the subject of the following sentence.

This schema forms a scaffolding template in constructing arguments that ensures structural validity, inference step clarity, and depiction of all necessary premises.

The following example is drawn from the Rationale Help section of the software. The first Pyramid map follows the conventional construction. The second Pyramid hybrid map changes the visual grammar and strings the co-premises vertically. This syntax change does not, however, create a Rationale Path map. This is because the sentences are not interlocked. The third argument map adjusts the premises so that they are interlocking, thus, creating a Rationale Path map.

Notice that the final argument map removes the unnecesary cognitive burden carried by the first two Pyramid argument maps. Without the interlocking of premises, the first and second maps require added cognitive effort, even if slight, by the reader to fill the implicit inference gaps and reorganize the inference steps. While, certainly, the mind can make the necessary inference connections in the first two maps, readability is reduced and potential inference flaws are less obvious.

In legal settings, these differences can be critical. The attorney should do the extra cognitive effort in constructing the argument, not the factfinder. And by using a Path schema to reconstruct the opposing party’s arguments, any structural flaws and hidden premises are readily apparent.