This is a visual grammar compilation that illustrates the visual language for using Rationale™ argument visualization software to construct Path maps. Rationale™ is, in my opinion, the most effective software program for constructing Path maps. The software is produced by Austhink. www.austhink.com. (For purposes of full disclosure, I am a former member of Austhink.) This text consists largely of a series of Path maps that illustrate various typical argument patterns using Rationale™. To begin, however, a short introduction to the Path argument schema may be helpful.

From one perspective, a Path argument schema can be viewed as simply a scaffold or template for designing arguments of any type to ensure a rigorous and valid argument structure that also has the most efficient design. With this scaffold, structural fallacies are easily avoided. And the resulting argument can be made the most succinct possible.

Succinctness is important for at least two reasons:

First, it improves readability. Readability is a function of three variables: 1) proposition density; 2) argument density; and, 3) coherence (e.g.“…if propositions are embedded in one another.”) Alice S. Horning http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/6/Articles/4.htm. Using a Path schema optimizes these three factors.

Second, since there is no unnecessary repetition of propositions (premises), the size of the argument visualization is minimized. This saves time in both constructing and comprehending the diagram. And the reduced size makes its use more practical for distribution or overhead projecting.

To create a Path map, one can begin by structuring the prose of the argument. The basic structure of a Path argument schema is a transitive chained reasoning path that leads to the main conclusion in which:

  1. the subject of the main conclusion sentence is the subject of the first sentence of the path;
  2. the predicate of the main conclusion sentence is the predicate of the last sentence of the path; and,
  3. each intervening sentence is linked by the predicate of one sentence being the same as the subject of the next sentence.

This template creates a transitive path of “linked co-premises” joining the subject of the main conclusion sentence with its predicate. With this basic configuration, each path of reasoning has a Start and a Finish and clear inference steps that represent the movement of the subject of the main conclusion sentence along the path of reasoning to reach the predicate of the main conclusion.

By using Rationale™ with this visual grammar, all types of argument patterns (e.g. Chained, Convergent, Compound, and Conditional) can be visualized. Any form of objection is precisely depicted. And “critical questions” of argument schemes are managed simply and distinctly. (They are depicted as “Companion Conditionals” that accompany a particular argument scheme. “Contextual Conditionals” are those conditions that are unique to the particular context of the reasoning.) The confusing identical placement of both co-premises and conditions (e.g. critical questions and compound elements) in the Pyramid visual language is avoided as well.

Further, many of the difficulties of Pyramid argument mapping are avoided. For example, since every adjacent premise is overlapping, there is no “linked premise” confusion. Since all the premises are set individually within a transitive path, there are no hidden premises that make placement of objections problematic. Since red and green colors are used to distinguish the opposing parties to an argument, it is easier to identify who is making a particular claim. (Connected boxes of different colors indicate objections.) Guidelines such as the “Rabbit Rule” and “Holding Hands” are unnecessary too.

While Rationale™ can be used to create Path map designs consisting of separated linked predicates for increased atomicity and pedagogical purposes, this compilation uses full sentences in the Path map designs to represent the more practical level of atomicity for use in the legal domain.