--- name: argument-mapping description: "Reconstruct, visualize, and analyze argument structure. Use for: argument reconstruction, premise identification, inference evaluation, finding hidden assumptions, visualizing debates, Toulmin model analysis. Triggers: 'argument structure', 'premises', 'conclusion', 'inference', 'reconstruct', 'map the argument', 'Toulmin', 'argument diagram', 'validity', 'soundness', 'implicit premise', 'hidden assumption', 'logical structure'." --- # Argument Mapping Skill Master the art of reconstructing, visualizing, and evaluating the logical structure of arguments. ## Why Map Arguments? Argument mapping serves several purposes: 1. **Clarify**: Make implicit structure explicit 2. **Evaluate**: Assess validity and soundness systematically 3. **Communicate**: Present complex arguments visually 4. **Critique**: Identify weaknesses and hidden assumptions 5. **Steelman**: Ensure fair representation of opposing views ## Basic Argument Structure ### Components of an Argument | Component | Definition | Example | |-----------|------------|---------| | **Conclusion** | The claim being argued for | "Socrates is mortal" | | **Premise** | A reason supporting the conclusion | "All men are mortal" | | **Inference** | The logical move from premises to conclusion | "Therefore..." | | **Assumption** | Unstated premise needed for validity | (Often hidden) | ### Simple Argument Form ``` P1: [Premise 1] P2: [Premise 2] ------------------- C: [Conclusion] ``` **Example**: ``` P1: All men are mortal P2: Socrates is a man ------------------- C: Socrates is mortal ``` ## The Toulmin Model Stephen Toulmin's model captures the nuanced structure of real-world arguments. ### Six Components ``` QUALIFIER │ ▼ GROUNDS ──────────► CLAIM ◄─────────── REBUTTAL │ ▲ │ │ │ │ ▼ │ ▼ WARRANT ◄──────── BACKING (Unless...) ``` | Component | Definition | Example | |-----------|------------|---------| | **Claim** | The conclusion/assertion | "We should ban smoking in restaurants" | | **Grounds** | Evidence/data supporting claim | "Secondhand smoke causes cancer" | | **Warrant** | Principle connecting grounds to claim | "We should prevent cancer-causing exposures" | | **Backing** | Support for the warrant itself | "Preventing harm is a core purpose of public policy" | | **Qualifier** | Degree of certainty | "Probably," "Certainly," "Presumably" | | **Rebuttal** | Conditions where claim fails | "Unless economic harm outweighs health benefits" | ### Toulmin Diagram Template ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ CLAIM: [Central thesis/conclusion] │ │ Qualifier: [Certainly/Probably/Possibly] │ │ │ │ ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │ │ │ │ GROUNDS: │ REBUTTAL: │ │ [Evidence/facts/data] │ Unless [exception conditions] │ │ │ │ │ ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │ │ │ │ WARRANT: │ │ [Principle that licenses inference from grounds to claim] │ │ │ │ ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │ │ │ │ BACKING: │ │ [Support for the warrant] │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` ## Argument Reconstruction Protocol ### Step 1: Identify the Conclusion What is the main claim being defended? **Indicator words**: therefore, thus, hence, so, consequently, it follows that, we can conclude **If not explicit**: What would the speaker want you to believe/do? ### Step 2: Find the Premises What reasons are given for the conclusion? **Indicator words**: because, since, for, given that, as shown by, the reason is **List them**: Number each premise explicitly (P1, P2, P3...) ### Step 3: Make Implicit Premises Explicit What unstated assumptions are needed for the argument to work? **Test**: If we add this premise, does the argument become valid? **Charity**: Choose the most reasonable implicit premises ### Step 4: Analyze the Structure How do the premises relate? **Linked premises**: Work together (all needed) ``` P1 + P2 │ ▼ C ``` **Convergent premises**: Independent support (each sufficient) ``` P1 P2 \ / \ / C ``` **Serial/Chain arguments**: One supports another ``` P1 │ P2 │ C ``` ### Step 5: Evaluate - **Validity**: Does conclusion follow from premises? - **Soundness**: Are premises actually true? - **Strength** (inductive): How probable is conclusion given premises? ## Diagramming Conventions ### Standard Notation ``` ┌─────┐ │ P1 │ ← Premise (box) └──┬──┘ │ ▼ ┌─────┐ │ C │ ← Conclusion (box) └─────┘ ``` ### Linked vs. Convergent **Linked** (all premises needed together): ``` ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ │ P1 │───│ P2 │ └──┬──┘ └──┬──┘ └────┬────┘ ▼ ┌─────┐ │ C │ └─────┘ ``` **Convergent** (independent support): ``` ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ │ P1 │ │ P2 │ └──┬──┘ └──┬──┘ │ │ └─────┬───────┘ ▼ ┌─────┐ │ C │ └─────┘ ``` ### Sub-Arguments When a premise is itself supported: ``` ┌─────┐ │ P1a │ ← Sub-premise └──┬──┘ ▼ ┌─────┐ │ P1 │ ← Intermediate conclusion / Premise for main argument └──┬──┘ │ ┌──┴──┐ │ P2 │ └──┬──┘ ▼ ┌─────┐ │ C │ ← Main conclusion └─────┘ ``` ### Objections and Rebuttals ``` ┌─────┐ │ P1 │ └──┬──┘ ▼ ┌─────┐ ┌─────────┐ │ C │ ◄─ ✗ ───│Objection│ └─────┘ └────┬────┘ │ ┌────▼────┐ │ Rebuttal│ └─────────┘ ``` ## Dialectical Tree Format For multi-position debates: ``` THESIS: [Main Position A] │ ├── Support 1: [Argument for A] │ ├── Evidence 1a │ └── Evidence 1b │ ├── Support 2: [Another argument for A] │ └── ANTITHESIS: [Opposing Position B] │ ├── Objection to Support 1: [Why it fails] │ ├── Objection to Support 2: [Why it fails] │ └── Positive argument for B │ └── SYNTHESIS: [Higher-level resolution] │ ├── What's preserved from A ├── What's preserved from B └── What's new ``` ## Common Argument Patterns ### Deductive Patterns **Modus Ponens**: ``` P1: If A, then B P2: A --------------- C: B ``` **Modus Tollens**: ``` P1: If A, then B P2: Not B --------------- C: Not A ``` **Disjunctive Syllogism**: ``` P1: A or B P2: Not A --------------- C: B ``` **Hypothetical Syllogism**: ``` P1: If A, then B P2: If B, then C --------------- C: If A, then C ``` **Reductio ad Absurdum**: ``` P1: Assume A (for contradiction) P2: A leads to contradiction B & not-B --------------- C: Not A ``` ### Inductive Patterns **Generalization**: ``` P1: Sample S has property P P2: Sample S is representative of population X --------------- C: (Probably) All X have property P ``` **Analogy**: ``` P1: A has properties F, G, H P2: B has properties F, G P3: A has property X --------------- C: (Probably) B has property X ``` **Inference to Best Explanation**: ``` P1: Phenomenon P is observed P2: Hypothesis H would explain P P3: H is the best available explanation --------------- C: (Probably) H is true ``` ### Philosophical Argument Patterns **Conceivability Argument**: ``` P1: X is conceivable P2: If conceivable, then possible --------------- C: X is possible ``` **Counterexample**: ``` P1: Thesis T claims all X are Y P2: Case C is X but not Y --------------- C: Thesis T is false ``` **Thought Experiment**: ``` P1: In scenario S, intuition I is strong P2: If I is correct, then principle P --------------- C: Principle P ``` ## Hidden Assumption Detection ### Method 1: Gap Analysis 1. State the premises 2. State the conclusion 3. Ask: What must be true for this inference to work? 4. The answer is the hidden assumption ### Method 2: Negation Test 1. Negate a potential assumption 2. If the argument fails, the assumption was needed ### Method 3: Charity + Validity 1. Assume the argument is intended to be valid 2. What premise would make it valid? 3. That's the most charitable hidden assumption ### Common Hidden Assumptions | Type | Example | |------|---------| | **Empirical** | Facts about the world assumed without evidence | | **Normative** | Value judgments assumed without defense | | **Conceptual** | Definitions assumed without clarification | | **Background** | Shared context assumed without statement | | **Scope** | Universality assumed without justification | ## Evaluation Criteria ### For Deductive Arguments | Criterion | Question | Assessment | |-----------|----------|------------| | **Validity** | Does conclusion follow necessarily? | Yes/No | | **Soundness** | Are all premises true? | Yes/No/Unknown | | **Completeness** | Are hidden premises stated? | Yes/Partially/No | ### For Inductive Arguments | Criterion | Question | Assessment | |-----------|----------|------------| | **Strength** | How probable is conclusion given premises? | Strong/Moderate/Weak | | **Cogency** | Are premises true AND argument strong? | Yes/No | | **Sample quality** | Is evidence representative? | Yes/No | ## Output Templates ### Standard Reconstruction ```markdown ## Argument Reconstruction: [Topic/Source] ### Conclusion [State the main claim being argued for] ### Explicit Premises P1: [First stated premise] P2: [Second stated premise] P3: [Third stated premise] ### Hidden Premises H1: [First unstated assumption needed for validity] H2: [Second unstated assumption] ### Argument Structure [Diagram showing how premises relate to conclusion] ### Evaluation - **Validity**: [Valid/Invalid—explain] - **Soundness**: [Sound/Unsound/Unknown—explain] - **Key weakness**: [Most vulnerable point] ### Dialectical Context [How this argument relates to the broader debate] ``` ### Debate Map ```markdown ## Debate Map: [Topic] ### Question at Issue [The central question being debated] ### Position A: [Label] **Thesis**: [Main claim] **Arguments**: 1. [Argument 1] - Objection: [Counter] - Reply: [Response] 2. [Argument 2] ### Position B: [Label] **Thesis**: [Main claim] **Arguments**: 1. [Argument 1] 2. [Argument 2] ### Points of Agreement - [Shared premise 1] - [Shared premise 2] ### Core Disagreement [What the debate ultimately turns on] ### Assessment [Which position is stronger and why] ``` ## Integration with Other Skills - **philosophical-analyst**: Use mapping in step 2 (argument reconstruction) - **symposiarch**: Map arguments during debate management - **thought-experiments**: Map the argument structure of thought experiment cases - **devils-advocate**: Identify weak premises in argument maps ## Reference Files - `patterns.md`: Comprehensive catalog of argument patterns - `diagramming.md`: Extended diagramming conventions and tools