1. Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) is a method for building common ground through cognitive change using logical argument diagrams. It aims to make implicit assumptions and limitations explicit to promote reflection. 2. LAM uses valid argument schemes as a normative standard, challenging users to represent arguments fully and address objections. This process reveals gaps and drives users to continually improve understanding. 3. For cognitive change to occur, relevant information must be visible while reducing cognitive load. LAM aims to integrate with the World Wide Argument Web to allow sharing of arguments.

1. Logical Argument Mapping (LAM):
A cognitive-change-based method for building
common ground
Michael H.G. Hoffmann
m.hoffmann@gatech.edu
October 27, 2007

2. Outline
• Argument visualization: State of the art
• Some definitions
• Specific differences of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM)
• The goal: Building common ground
through cognitive change in four areas
• Cognitive change and Peirce’s concepts of
diagrammatic reasoning and pragmatism
• The compulsory power of diagrams
• Requirements for cognitive-change-based argument visualization tools
• The normative standard of LAM: Three rules
• The LAM procedure
• The essential ideas behind LAM
• Analysis of an exemplary argument
• Conventions for constructing LAM arguments
• Conclusion
• References
m.hoffmann@gatech.edu

3. Argument visualization: State of the art in three areas
Argumentation in a broader sense (focus on clarifying issues,
sensemaking, problem solving, collaborative learning):
• Belvedere: Dan Suthers
• Compendium, ClaiMapper: Simon Buckingham Shum
• Dialog mapping: Conklin, 2006
Argumentation in a narrow sense:
• Toulmin, 2003 <1958>
• Wigmore Diagrams (1931): Rowe & Reed, 2006
• Carneades: Gordon, Prakken, & Walton, 2007
• Rationale: van Gelder, 2007
• Araucaria: Reed & Rowe, 2004
Systems to translate various argumentation styles
• Argument Interchange Format (AIF): Chesnevar et. al., 2006
• World Wide Argument Web (WWAW): Rahwan, Zablith, &
Reed, 2007

4. Some definitions
• Argument:
An instantiation of an argument scheme. The general
form of an argument scheme is always that of relating
at least one reason to a claim (various lists of argument
schemes can be found in Walton, 1995; Pollock, 1995; Katzav & Reed,
2004; hist. overview: Garrson, 2001).
• Logical Argument:
An argument whose argument scheme is a valid rule
of inference (modus ponens, complete induction, etc.)
• Argumentation:
A set of arguments and statements that support,
object to, or evaluate elements of those arguments

5. Specific differences of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM)
• Uses primarily logically valid argument schemes
• Main function: To induce cognitive change
• Central idea: Logical inference forms establish a
normative standard for arguments. In her attempts to
meet this standard, the user is challenged to enter a
kind of dialectical process that leads her back and
forth between improving her own understanding of the
issue in question and the way she represents it
• That means: LAM is more an interventional than a
descriptive tool
• Following Thomas Aquinas: Before you attack an
argument, make it as strong as possible
• The focus is on representing subjective (and
intersubjective) perspectives, not on an objectivist
reconstruction of some “truth.” Since everybody
frames a problem or conflict differently, the
“authorship” of an argument is important

6. The goal: Building common ground through cognitive
change in four areas
1. Facilitated conflict negotiations
2. Deliberative decision making
In (1.) and (2.) LAM can be used to deepen mutual
understanding and to stimulate cognitive change in cases
where mutual understanding is a central problem
3. Analysis of texts and narratives
LAM can help the analyst to find common ground between
her interpretation and the material’s rationality
4. Intercultural communication
There is some hope that through an intercultural
development of LAM argument schemes a sort of universal
argument language can be formed

7. Cognitive change and Peirce’s concepts of
diagrammatic reasoning and pragmatism
• Diagrammatic reasoning: by externalizing our
reasoning in diagrams, we create “something
(non-ego) that stands up against our
consciousness. … reasoning unfolds when we
inhibit the active side of our consciousness and
allow things to act on us” (Hull, 1994)
• “Diagrams” are those “icons” that are
constructed by means of a certain
“representational system” (Peirce, CP 4.418)
• E.g. an axiomatic system: A system of axioms
does not only define the representational means
that are available in a field, but it determines also
the necessary outcome of any operation or
experimentation we perform within such a
system.

8. The compulsory power of diagrams
It is the ontology (elements
and relations) and the rules of
the chosen system of
representation that determines
which experiments with
diagrams are possible, and
their necessary outcome.
For Peirce, this is the
foundation of his pragmatism:
It is a “practical consideration”
that “if one exerts certain
kinds of volition, one will
undergo in return certain
compulsory perceptions. …
Kant’s construction to certain lines of conduct will
prove that the sum of the entail certain kinds of
inevitable experiences”
triangle’s inner angles
(CP 5.9).
equals 180° degrees

9. Requirements for cognitive-change-based argument
visualization tools
1. Since a diagram is the more “compelling” the stronger
the rules of the representational system, and the better
we understand and realize these rules, we need, first, a
standard of argumentation that is as strong as
possible and, second, the readiness of people to
pursue the goal of meeting this standard as strictly as
possible.
2. Whatever is relevant for the possibility of cognitive
change, or what might have an impact on the
acceptability of an argument, must be visible
3. To reduce cognitive load, only what is relevant should
be visible
4. To allow the integration into the World Wide Argument
Web (WWAW) proposed by Rahwan, Zablith, & Reed
(2007), each element of an argumentation should be
tagged using the ontology of the Argument
Interchange Format (AIF)

10. The normative standard of LAM: Three rules
1. Structure your map according to an
argument scheme whose logical
validity is evident and generally
accepted
2. make sure that all your premises
(reasons and warrants) are true, and
provide further arguments for their
truth if they are not evident
3. make sure that all your premises are
consistent with each other

11. The LAM procedure
1. Identify the logical argument scheme that
represents best what you try to map as an
argument
2. Transform what you identified as an argument into
a logical argument by adding what is missing, and
by reformulating the elements of the argument in a
way that its validity in accordance with the scheme
becomes evident
3. Consider possible objections against both the
reason and the warrant. (At this point, the
compelling character of LAM as a representational
system plays out. Since we are challenged to
explicate everything that is needed to get a
logically valid argument, we can see exactly where
the argument can be weakened)
4. Decide whether to develop new arguments against
the objections, or to reformulate it in a way that it
can be defended against the objections, or to give
up the whole argument

12. The essential ideas behind LAM
• The normative standard of the three rules challenges the LAM
user to explicate everything that is necessary to get a logical
argument map, and to refine her or his map as long as it takes to
meet this standard
• This means
1. that all those implicit background assumptions that determine how we frame
an issue—and that are mostly responsible for problems of mutual
understanding—become visible and an object of reflection
2. that all the parts of an argument—not only what someone explicitly
mentions—are on the table and can be questioned so that a process of
building common ground will be motivated
• Visualizing what hinders most in building common ground is
essential for cognitive change
• From an epistemological point of view, the truth of premises in
arguments is either evident or has to be justified in an ongoing
process of argumentation. Thus, Logical Argument Mapping leads
either to assumptions that can be accepted as socially shared, or
to a certain modesty regarding truth claims
• Whatever the outcome might be, it is a process that we engage in
when mapping the logical structure of an argument.

13. Analysis of two exemplary arguments
1. The map
2. Analysis of an
argument about
the importance
of jihad
(877 KB)

14. Conventions for constructing LAM arguments
Layout
• The structure of a LAM map is determined by Western reading habits that direct
our attention from the top left corner of a page to the right and downwards
• Since the understanding of an argument is facilitated when we know the central
claim from the very beginning, this claim is located on top of the map in the left
corner
• Starting from there, we work to the right and downwards to reconstruct the
reasons and warrants in an ongoing process of argumentation
Ontology: statements and relations
• Statements are presented in two different text box forms: rounded rectangles and
ovals. Based on their importance for cognitive change, the warrants are
highlighted by using oval text boxes; everything else is presented in rounded
rectangles
• The ground color specifies a coherent position, all statements in this color must
be consistent; objections and other considerations are presented in different
colors
• Relations are represented by arrows. Each arrow must be specified by
1. Its function: “therefore” for arguments; “opposes,” “refutes,” “rejects,” “questions,”
“supports,” etc. for other functions
2. By naming the chosen logical argument scheme (S-R: rule of inference scheme) or
a conflict scheme (S-C)
3. By naming the person/group/institution that claims this relation (AU: author)

15. Conclusion
• The purpose of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) is
to facilitate processes of building common ground
in three areas:
Conflict negotiations

Deliberative decision making

Analysis of texts and narratives

Intercultural communication

• Its main objective is to motivate cognitive change
• If cognitive change is the goal, then more important
than finding the truth with regard to an issue is to
promote self-reflexivity: revealing implicit
assumptions and motivating both insight into one’s
own limitations and an ongoing process of
reframing

16. LAM: Older examples on the web
• Searching for common ground on
Hamas (March 31, 2007; 279 KB)
http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1175354427380_673614899_4820&partName=htmltext
• Hume on causality
(March 12, 2007; 2.0 MB!)
http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1174485108126_1315080200_6415&partName=htmltext
• Regulating kidney supply
(Feb 27, 2007; 618 KB)
http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1172634181185_1938633584_8077&partName=htmltext
• Middle East conflict. An Argumentation
on the sovereignty over al-Haram al-
Sharif/Temple Mount in Jerusalem
(May 30, 2006; 763 KB)
http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1174484935398_1054902877_6189&partName=htmltext

17. References
Chesnevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., et al. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering
Review, 21(4), 293-316.
Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Garrson, B. (2001). Argument Schemes. In F. H. v. Eemeren (Ed.), Critical concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81-100). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press.
Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 875-896.
Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2004). How to Get It. Diagrammatic Reasoning as a Tool of Knowledge Development and its Pragmatic Dimension. Foundations of Science,
9(3), 285-305.
—— (2005). Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management,
16(4), 305–335.
—— (in press). Cognitive conditions of diagrammatic reasoning. Semiotica (special issue on quot;Peircean diagrammatical logic,quot; ed. by J. Queiroz and F.
Stjernfelt).
Hull, K. (1994). Why Hanker After Logic? Mathematical Imagination, Creativity and Perception in Peirce's Systematic Philosophy. Transactions of the Charles S.
Peirce Society, 30, 271–295.
Katzav, J., & Reed, C. A. (2004). On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments. Argumentation, 18(2), 239 - 259.
Kirschner, P. A., Shum, S. J. B., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making.
London: Springer.
Peirce. (CP). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP.
Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry. A blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press.
Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., & Reed, C. (2007). Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 897-921.
Reed, C. A., & Rowe, G. W. A. (2004). Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 14(3-4),
961-980.
Rowe, G. W. A., & Reed, C. A. (2006). Translating Wigmore Diagrams [Electronic Version]. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2007, from
http://babbage.computing.dundee.ac.uk/chris/publications/2006/comma2006-wig.pdf
Toulmin, S. E. (2003 <1958>). The Layout of Arguments. In The uses of argument (Updated ed., pp. 87-134). Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University
Press.
van Gelder, T. J. (2007). Rationale: Making People Smarter Through Argument Mapping [Electronic Version]. Law, Probability and Risk, submitted, from
http://www.austhink.com/pdf/vangelder_submitted.pdf
Walton, D. (1995). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof (2nd ed.): Little, Brown & Co.