Unlike educational contexts, in litigation or even real-time business settings, any explanation of how to read an argument map needs to be of the one-footed variety (e.g., in the time a person can stand on one foot). If it takes a one-hour seminar to learn, or even 10 minutes, in my experience, forget it.

The major difficulty with explaining the visual conventions of standard Mountain (tree-like) argument mapping is that knowing how co-premises, etc. are depicted doesn’t answer the more fundamental question of what the heck is a co-premise…let alone the other typical constructs of argumentation. (I’m still not sure how to describe what is a co-premise without delving into vague conceptualizations.)

Using the transitivity of predication principle avoids this problem. Each sentence, linked in a transitive manner, provides a stepping stone that, if accepted, brings the reader closer to the main contention or conclusion. And the stepping stones are supported by assumptions, the removal of anyone of which, will cause the stone to tumble to the ground. By creating a kinesthetic  metaphor and putting the reader in the picture, their comprehension is intuitive.

The following picture is typical of one I use, if necessary, to explain the fundamentals of reading an argument map. I project it on the screen for about 30 seconds while actually walking along imaginary stepping stones on the courtroom floor explaining what each step means. People just seem to get it.