Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Argument maps can also represent counterarguments. In the following diagram, the two objections weaken the contention, while the reasons support the premise of the objection: A sample argument using objections. Inferences. Some argument mapping conventions allow for perspicuous representation of inferences.
Argument analysis is distinguishing the premises and conclusion of an argument and determining their relationships (such as whether they are linked or convergent—see Argument map § Key features for diagrams of such relationships), determining the form of inference, and making explicit any implicit premises or conclusions.
Argüman is a free and open source software for collective structured argumentation and argument analysis via argumentation graphs or argument maps in which the type of connections can be specified.
Kialo is an online structured debate platform with argument maps in the form of debate trees. It is a collaborative reasoning tool for thoughtful discussion, understanding different points of view, and collaborative decision-making, showing arguments for and against claims underneath user-submitted theses or questions.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
Example of an early argument map, from Richard Whately's Elements of Logic (1852 edition). Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning.
Araucaria is an argument mapping software tool developed in 2001 by Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe, in the Argumentation Research Group at the School of Computing in the University of Dundee, Scotland. It is designed to visually represent arguments through diagrams that can be used for analysis and stored in Argument Markup Language (AML), based on XML.
Among other things, this means that LA can support contradiction – proof that an argument is true and that it is false. Arguments supporting the case for and arguments supporting the case against are aggregated separately, leading to a single assessment of confidence in the case for and a single assessment of confidence in the case against.