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.