INFERENCE PATH

Austhink provides, at page 26, an effective example of creating a nonsensical argument using greeking to illustrate the scaffolding of conventional argument mapping. The following Rationale™ argument map is illustrative.

The visual grammar of conventional argument mapping does an excellent job of organizing the components of an argument. This process removes much of the confusion that can result from inadequate signal words or a lack of clear structure in the prose separating reasons from the conclusion. There is, however, a significant deficiency in this scaffolding.

As the above example illustrates, the scaffolding of conventional argument mapping permits a nonsensical or structurally fallacious argument. Students can just put nonsense in the boxes and satisfy the visual grammar. Why not have the visual grammar permit only structurally valid arguments in the first place. An ADEPT™ Inference Path argument map accomplishes this goal through its transitive linking of the premises as illustrated below in the two argument maps.