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.