Building an Argument Map

Question 1

3 components of an argument map/tree

Answer 1

1. Conclusion/main claim/contention/position
2. Arguments or premises pro (statements of reasons or evidence for the claim)
3. Arguments or premises contra (statements of reasons or evidence against the claim) - objections

Question 2

Contention

Answer 2

an idea that somebody claims to be true

Question 3

Reason

Answer 3

evidence for the contention

Question 4

Objection

Answer 4

seeks to furnish evidence against the contention

Question 5

Conclusion

Answer 5

a contention supported by a reason or refuted by a counterargument

Question 6

Single argument

Answer 6

consists of a contention which is justified using a single premise, or undermined using a single objection/counterargument

Question 7

Multiple/composite argument

Answer 7

includes more than 1 reason or objection

Question 8

Convergent argument

Answer 8

when 2 premises support a conclusion separately and independently from one another

Question 9

Chain of reasoning

Answer 9

a contention can operate as the premise for a conclusion at a higher level

Question 10

Co-premises

Answer 10

when several premises together form a source of evidence for a conclusion

Question 11

Another term for co-premises

Answer 11

dependent premises

Question 12

Syllogisms

Answer 12

arguments containing dependent premises

e.g. all people are animals and all animals breathe oxygen, so all people breathe oxygen

Question 13

You can also see a _____ as a ____ that bridges the logical gap between a ____ and a ____

Answer 13

co-premise, contention, premise, conclusion

Question 14

Minor premise

Answer 14

points at an implicit assumption needed to justify the conclusion

Question 15

3 Fundamental rules of Argument Mapping

Answer 15

1. Golden rule
2. Rabbit rule
3. Holding hands rule

Question 16

Golden rule

Answer 16

each single argument really consists of 2 or more co-premises

• > this rule assumes that you need at least a co-premise to bridge the gap between the major premises and the conclusion
• > this rule invites you to identify minor assumptions

Question 17

Rabbit rule

Answer 17

each significant term is part of the conclusion should also be part of the premises

-> ensures that there is a connection between the premise and the contention

Question 18

Holding hands rule

Answer 18

if a term forms part of the premises but not of the contention, it should also form part of the other premises

-> ensures that a co-premise has a connection with another co-premise

Question 19

Premise

Answer 19

a claim belonging to a reason or objection

Question 20

Counterarguments

Answer 20

2 arguments that counter each other, (the evidence provided in favor of the claim versus the evidence provided against the claim)

Question 21

Dispute

Answer 21

a claim to which several reasons and objections are linked

Question 22

“If..then” (a type of warrant)

Answer 22

represent a regularity or a law which, while suggesting an underlying causality, cannot be equated with it

-> they always form a dependent co-premise

Question 23

Warrant

Answer 23

a justification why a particular premise provides support for a particular claim

Question 24

2 logical forms of reasoning (propositional logic)

Answer 24

1. modus ponens

2. modus tollens

Question 25

Modus ponens

Answer 25

if A is true then B is true e.g. we know that if it is raining (A), then Nancy gets wet (B)

Question 26

Modus tollens

Answer 26

if B is false then A is false e.g. Nancy does not get wet (B is false), therefore we conclude it is not raining (A is false)