[A notice of new posts by email subscription option is available at the bottom of this page.]

This principle can be illustrated with the following examples.

Bob possessed one of the keys to the safe at the time of the burglary. Someone who possessed one of the keys to the safe at the time of the burglary committed the crime. [The safe was opened with a key.] Therefore, Bob committed the crime.

This pattern does not fit the ADEPT mode of inference. The problem is that the subject of the second premise does not represent the category “possessed one of the keys to the safe at the time of the burglary.” Rather, the word “someone” indicates only a member of that category. ADEPT requires, as a categorical mode of inference in which the category consists of the verb-predicate, that each linking premise be a generalization from the previous complete predicate category.

By changing the “Someone” of membership to the “One” of category, the ADEPT structure is achieved and a valid inference results.

The following argument defeasible essential predication transitivity map illustrates a kinesthetic metaphoric graphic convention to depict premises that support different amounts of acceptability.

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.

The ADEPT™ argument map illustrates that a very slender reed can support the premises that lead to a diagnosis. The removal of any one of the supporting assumptions would cause the inference path to collapse removing any chance of any level of certainty or acceptability reaching the conclusion along this particular inference path. Of course, there could be other inference paths that lead to this conclusion which have sufficient probative strength.

Perhaps cognitive errors should be added to the list of the six standard critical questions for Argument from Expert Opinion created by Dr. Douglas Walton.