Argument Mapping: Visualize and Strengthen Your Reasoning
Arguments can be confusing. Multiple claims, hidden assumptions, complex relationships between ideas—it's easy to lose track or be misled. Argument mapping solves this by making reasoning visible.
An argument map is a visual diagram showing how an argument's parts connect: what's being claimed, what supports it, and where weaknesses might hide. This technique, central to critical thinking, transforms fuzzy reasoning into something you can analyze clearly.
Why Argument Maps Work
They force clarity: You can't map vague thinking. The process of mapping forces you to articulate exactly what's being claimed and why.
They reveal structure: Complex arguments become navigable when you see how pieces connect.
They expose gaps: Missing steps, unsupported claims, and weak links become obvious visually.
They improve memory: Visual representation helps you understand and remember arguments better than text alone.
Research shows argument mapping improves critical thinking skills more than traditional instruction—sometimes dramatically.
Basic Argument Structure
Every argument has the same fundamental structure:
Conclusion (Claim): What the argument asks you to believe.
Premises (Reasons): The evidence or reasoning offered to support the conclusion.
Inference: The logical connection between premises and conclusion.
- Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
- Premise 2: Socrates is human.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
In a map, conclusions appear at the top, with supporting premises branching below.
Reading an Argument Map
In standard argument maps:
- Boxes contain claims (statements that can be true or false)
- Green boxes often represent the main conclusion
- Lines/arrows show support relationships
- Plus signs (+) indicate premises that work together (both needed)
- Separate branches indicate independent reasons (each supports alone)
Two types of support:
Co-premises (linked support): Claims that work together—if either is false, the support fails.
"Because the train leaves at 6:00 (+) and it takes 30 minutes to get to the station, we must leave by 5:30."
Independent premises: Separate reasons that each support the conclusion on their own.
"We should exercise because it improves physical health. [Also, separately] It improves mental health."
How to Create an Argument Map
Step 1: Identify the main conclusion
What is the argument ultimately trying to convince you of? This goes at the top.
Ask: "What's the bottom line? What should I believe after hearing this?"
Step 2: Find the main premises
What reasons are given to support the conclusion? These go directly below the conclusion.
Ask: "Why should I believe this? What evidence or reasoning is offered?"
Step 3: Identify support for premises
Premises themselves often need support. Create additional levels as needed.
Ask: "Is this premise supported, or just asserted?"
Step 4: Mark co-premises and independent premises
Determine which premises work together and which stand alone.
Ask: "Does this reason work by itself, or does it need another claim to support the conclusion?"
Step 5: Look for hidden premises
Many arguments have unstated assumptions that are essential to the reasoning.
Ask: "What would have to be true for this reasoning to work?"
Example: Mapping a Real Argument
Original text: "The government should invest more in renewable energy. Climate change is accelerating, and fossil fuels are the primary cause. Renewable technology has become cost-competitive, and investment would create jobs while reducing emissions. Other countries are moving ahead, and we risk falling behind economically."
Mapped structure:
CONCLUSION: The government should invest more in renewable energy.
- Climate change is accelerating
- Fossil fuels are the primary cause
- → Reducing fossil fuel use is urgent
- Renewable technology is now cost-competitive
- → Investment makes economic sense
- Investment would create jobs
- Investment would reduce emissions
- → Multiple benefits from investment
- Other countries are moving ahead
- → We risk falling behind economically
Evaluating Arguments Using Maps
Once mapped, evaluation becomes systematic:
Check each premise: Is it true? What's the evidence?
Check the inferences: Does the conclusion actually follow from the premises?
Identify hidden premises: Are the unstated assumptions acceptable?
Assess premise importance: If one branch fails, does the argument still work?
Look for logical fallacies: Are there reasoning errors?
Advanced Techniques
Objections and rebuttals: Add objections to claims with red boxes, and counter-arguments in response.
Confidence levels: Annotate claims with how confident you are (high/medium/low) to identify weak points.
Evidence types: Mark what kind of evidence supports each premise (data, authority, anecdote, logic).
Tools for Argument Mapping
You can map arguments with pen and paper, but software helps with complex arguments:
- Rationale (rationaleonline.com)
- MindMup
- Argument mapping features in various critical thinking courses
Even simple tools like drawing boxes and arrows on paper work well for most purposes.
Practical Applications
Evaluating news and opinion: Map arguments to see if they're actually well-supported.
Writing and speaking: Map your own arguments before presenting them to ensure solid structure.
Decision-making: Map the reasons for and against options.
Academic reading: Map complex texts to understand author's reasoning.
Debate preparation: Map opposing arguments to find weaknesses.
When Arguments Resist Mapping
Not everything can be cleanly mapped:
- Vague claims need clarification first
- Emotional appeals aren't logical arguments
- Stories and anecdotes don't have argument structure
- Bad arguments may have no coherent structure to map
Difficulty mapping is often diagnostic—it reveals fuzzy thinking that needs work.
Related Reading
Listen to the Full Course
Sharpen your analysis in Critical Thinking: Sharpen Your Mind.