INFERENCE PATH

Dr. Tim van Gelder’s excellent recent article on Rationale™ depicts an argument map (p. 7) that can be used to illustrate the question of whether conditionals (e.g. elements of a tort or crime) should be diagrammed like typical “linked” premises that connect through inference steps along a path of reasoning.  http://rtnl.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/rationaleforrationale.pdf.

In the above referenced map, the three elements of negligence are depicted in the same manner as inferentially linked premises (e.g. tort element premises and inferential premises are all adjacent to each other.) But in actuality, there are no inference steps that bind them to each other.

I suggest that a more rigorous, effective, and clearer visual grammar with Rationale™ is to separate inferentially linked premises from the conditionals that support them as illustrated below. The horizontal inference path makes clear the inference steps and the vertically placed conditionals reflect their underlying supporting nature. [The premise "the plaintiff was allowed to cross the road unassisted" was moved from the tort element of "plaintiff suffered harm caused by defendant's breach" to the tort element "defendant breached his duty of care." When using a transitive inference structure to link the inferential premises, the more appropriate connection to this different tort element, becomes, in my opinion readily apparent.]

In litigation, I always explain how one “box” is inferentially linked to its neighbor. Factfinders are typically both skeptical and unclear about the nature of inference steps. With a transitive inference pattern, the linkage is obvious. And by separating supporting conditionals from the premises in the direct line of the inferential path, confusion is minimized. [Conditionals still, of course, have probative relevance since they are part of the inferential network.]

Conventional argument mapping places the emphasis on the inference steps. The predication relationship of each premise contained within the typical boxes is not explicitly depicted other than through the use of a sentence structure. As I have done in the past on this blog, I suggest that the emphasis between inference and predication should be reversed.

With a transitive inference approach, the issue of questions of inference is naturally resolved. The focus can then be more appropriately placed on the acceptability of the premises and the other possibilities that can be predicated of the subject of each premise.

A premise within a box does a poor job of depicting metaphorically the uncertainty that can attach to stepping from the subject to the predicate of the premise and the different directions that one can step off to from the subject of the sentence. The sentence structure of a premise hides this uncertainty and range of possibilities.

The following argument map suggests an alternative approach. Note that the inference steps follow a transitive approach. The movement between the premises is depicted within a structured template that ensures a valid inference structure. And the arrows reflect the movement from subject to predicate of each premise where the action is. Conditionals and objections are also depicted.
 

In litigation, the fewer distractions for the jury and the judge, the better it is (e.g. when you carry the burden of confusion).  When making arguments, removing the distraction of questions of inference increases your chances of success. By using transitivity in constructing your argument, the judge and jury can simply focus on the acceptability of your premises.

This week in court, I used the following transitivity argument map for two purposes. First, it illustrated that the statute circled in red was contained within the inference path. This fact was used to defeat a motion to strike based on irrelevancy. Second, it depicted the inference path that lead to our conclusion on the merits of the case. Because questions of inference were removed with a transitivity pattern, the court’s attention could focus on the premises. It helped us overcome the burden of confusion.