Recognizing structural fallacies is important in presenting arguments to the court. Yet in litigation, even the courts do not always recognize structural fallacies. (Thompson v. State of Texas, Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, No. 73,431, discussing Denying the Antecedent.) Typical hierarchical pyramid argument mapping is, however, no help.

Gibson, Rowe, and Reed present an interesting analysis of one type of structural fallacy using Araucaria hierarchical pyramid argument mapping to develop a computational approach. http://babbage.computing.dundee.ac.uk/chris/publications/2007/cmna2007-gibson.pdf.  The structural fallacy examined is Affirming the Consequent. The scaffolding of Araucaria provides, however, no clue of the structural problem.

A TRANSITIVITY™ approach, as illustrated in the slide show below using their example, provides a solution. And, in my opinion, extending the AML to include a representation of the transitivity of predication,  rather than basing it on a Wigmorean schema, would optimize the effectiveness of the computational approach.

[slideshare id=65856&doc=denying-the-antecedent-41349&w=425]