page_title: Argument map
section_title: Diagramming written text
hierarchical_section_title: Argument map / Representing an argument as an argument map / Diagramming written text
caption_attribution_description: English: An example of an argument diagram using Harrell's procedure.
context_page_description: In informal logic and philosophy, an argument map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument. An argument map typically includes the key components of the argument, traditionally called the conclusion and the premises, also called contention and reasons. Argument maps can also show co-premises, objections, counterarguments, rebuttals, and lemmas. There are different styles of argument map but they are often functionally equivalent and represent an argument's individual claims and the relationships between them.
  Argument maps are commonly used in the context of teaching and applying critical thinking. The purpose of mapping is to uncover the logical structure of arguments, identify unstated assumptions, evaluate the support an argument offers for a conclusion, and aid understanding of debates. Argument maps are often designed to support deliberation of issues, ideas and arguments in wicked problems.
  An argument map is not to be confused with a concept map or a mind map, two other kinds of node–link diagram which have different constraints on nodes and links.
context_section_description: A written text can be transformed into an argument map by following a sequence of steps. Monroe Beardsley's 1950 book Practical Logic recommended the following procedure:
  Separate statements by brackets and number them.
  Put circles around the logical indicators.
  Supply, in parenthesis, any logical indicators that are left out.
  Set out the statements in a diagram in which arrows show the relationships between statements.
  Beardsley gave the first example of a text being analysed in this way:
  Though ① [people who talk about the "social significance" of the arts don’t like to admit it], ② [music and painting are bound to suffer when they are turned into mere vehicles for propaganda]. For ③ [propaganda appeals to the crudest and most vulgar feelings]: (for) ④ [look at the academic monstrosities produced by the official Nazi painters]. What is more important, ⑤ [art must be an end in itself for the artist], because ⑥ [the artist can do the best work only in an atmosphere of complete freedom].
  Beardsley said that the conclusion in this example is statement ②. Statement ④ needs to be rewritten as a declarative sentence, e.g. "Academic monstrosities [were] produced by the official Nazi painters." Statement ① points out that the conclusion isn't accepted by everyone, but statement ① is omitted from the diagram because it doesn't support the conclusion. Beardsley said that the logical relation between statement ③ and statement ④ is unclear, but he proposed to diagram statement ④ as supporting statement ③.
  More recently, philosophy professor Maralee Harrell recommended the following procedure:
  Identify all the claims being made by the author.
  Rewrite them as independent statements, eliminating non-essential words.
  Identify which statements are premises, sub-conclusions, and the main conclusion.
  Provide missing, implied conclusions and implied premises. (This is optional depending on the purpose of the argument map.)
  Put the statements into boxes and draw a line between any boxes that are linked.
  Indicate support from premise(s) to (sub)conclusion with arrows.
caption: A box and line diagram of Beardsley's example, produced using Harrell's procedure
exif: {"Image ExifOffset": "11018", "Thumbnail ImageWidth": "200", "Thumbnail ImageLength": "106", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormat": "8", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormatLength": "10992", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "528", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "279"}