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.]