Dan Prager presents an interesting variation of Pyramid mapping of a previous Path map I had posted.  http://dailykibitz.blogspot.com/2007/05/suspect-for-murder.html. I very much appreciate the collegial exchange in our mutual attempts to advance argument mapping.

Dan’s variation of typical Pyramid mapping  moves in the direction of the structural rigor demanded by the scaffolding in Inference Path mapping (aka Path mapping). I would suggest that there are benefits in coming the rest of the way over to Inference Path mapping for several reasons:

  • One of the strengths of Inference Path mapping is the strict rigor of always chaining co-premises as interlocking sentences with the predicate of one co-premise becoming the subject of the next co-premise. This scaffolding ensures that there can be no hidden premises. (With increased granularity there, of course, can always be more co-premises.) In Dan’s example, there are missing co-premises that are necessary for the inference steps. (I have added them in my example below.) This problem is always avoided with Inference Path mapping.
  • By separating the subject and predicate of the main contention in Inference Path mapping, the actual inference steps of the subject of the main contention to join with its matching predicate can be explicitly portrayed in a metaphorical stepping manner. It is, thus, clear to the reader how many actual “leaps” are needed to reach the main contention. This number is important when arguing in litigation about the weakness of the inference path because of the excessive number of “leaps” needed.
  • Dan’s example uses the same space in the green box to depict co-premises and “conditionals.” This overlap creates confusion for the reader as to the premise type based on this shared location.
  • One advantage of Inference Path mapping is the increased readability that results from designing the most efficient proposition and argument density. This also results in less actual space needed which is critical in presenting exhibits in briefs or in court. Even when adding the missing hidden premises from Dan’s map, the Inference Path example below still has far fewer premises than Dan’s map. This occurs because Inference Path mapping visually indicates the interim subconclusions through the “inference step” dotted arrows. This avoids the necessity of adding actual additional premises as done in Dan’s example.
  • For purposes of litigation, a clear visual distinction, as done in Inference Path mapping, between the premises of the plaintiff and defendant is critical. (If Rationale would allow the orange rebuttal boxes to be changed to red, there would be no need to use orange and red as the colors for one of the litigants.) 
  • When the co-premises are linked in a horizontal manner, it is easier to check if the sentences are interlocking since the predicate of one co-premise is adjoining the subject of the next co-premise.
  • Dan’s observation that “cited law” needs to be reflected is easily done with Inference Path mapping.
  • Inference Path mapping maintains a strong metaphorical integrity with argument as walking along a path. And when “conditionals” are depicted beneath a co-premise the concept of support is visual enhanced.
  • By maintaining scaffolding of interlocking co-premises in Inference Path mapping, typical structural fallacies in an argument are made readily apparent.

I look forward to continued dialogue.