Target audience: everyone interested,

no special knowledge necessary

Reading time: about 20-25 minutes
Page layout: allows easy reading
without scrolling,
even on
very small screens
uthor: !dgar "artel
#ate: published $ovember 20%&
Terms: 'ree 'or non-commercial use (license details below),
commercial use re*uires separate agreement
+reative +ommons &,0 -nported .icense
ttribution - $on+ommercial - /haredlike BY NC SA
CC
$
How to make and use argument maps
Avoid endless discussions
0e'ore we begin, you may want to know this:
This te1t is a (slightly edited) e1cerpt 'rom the book
2#ecision making, politics and *uality o' li'e2 by !dgar "artel,
3ost e1amples, and all persons or organi4ations
appearing in them, are invented,
+hapters ppendices
%, 5ntroduction - short one
2, Problems, ll sorts, all si4es,
6here do they come 'rom7
&, 6hat is a 2good2 or 2bad2 decision7
de'initions interme44o
8, 6hat happens when bad decisions
are made 're*uently7
bout circles and spirals
5, "ow can bad decisions be avoided7
short answer
9, 6hich 'actors hinder good decision
making7 - n overview
:, "ow to overcome the 'actors that
hinder good decision making
pproaches and methods
%0, +onclusion - short one
;, n appeal: how you can contribute
0etter decisions, less problems
<, #ecision making theory vs, real li'e
6hy available tools are not used
Contents

o' the

P#= e-book

#ecision 3aking,
Politics and
>uality o' .i'e

by

!dgar "artel
BY NC SA
CC
$
, >uality o' li'e as a decision criterion
The most important one7
0, 5s there a 2mother o' all problems2 7
"ow to solve interconnected
problems
+, #o not create larger problems while
solving the original one
6here is the grass greener7
#, =actors that hinder good decision
making - 0rie'ly e1plained
!, >uality standards 'or
decision making
6hat they could look like
=, "ow to visuali4e and evaluate
decision options - /tep by step
?, "ow to make and use
argument maps
void endless discussions
", 3iscellaneous
cknowledgements, remarks,
contact in'ormation
", 3iscellaneous
cknowledgements, remarks,
contact in'ormation
!stimated reading time: 20-25 minutes
How to make and use argument maps
void endless discussions
#iscussions have an
important role in our lives,
They in'luence our thinking,
our social relations, our
decision making and our actions,
Public discussions (or debates)
o'ten precede and in'luence
political decision making,
6hich again a''ects us,
There'ore it is in our best interest
that discussions give use'ul
results, 5nstead o' manipulating
us, or simply wasting our time,
This te1t is mostly about
diagrams that can help us to have
better (and shorter) discussions,
882
0ut be'ore making any diagrams
we need to 'ind out what to
e1pect 'rom a 2better2 discussion,
'ter that, we need to take
a *uick look at which reality
these diagrams re'lect,
$ote:
The diagram types in this te1t
come in addition to the
(multi-party) decision matrices
introduced in appendi1 = o' the
original book,
Rather use those matrices
i' the discussion is about
choosing between decision options,
88&
Progress
5ntro done
bout discussions up ne1t
#iagrams and reality (yours or mine7)
rgument maps
rgument evaluation
rgument evaluation diagrams
888
5n an ideal discussion,
the participants:
%, talk@write about a precisely
de'ined topic, and nothing else
2, agree on the purpose
o' the discussion
&, treat each other with respect
8, e1press themselves clearly
5, consider each other2s viewpoints
and arguments with open minds
9, come to their conclusions a'ter
they have heard and evaluated
all arguments
and
:, do all this without wasting time,
885
5n real li'e discussions,
the participants o'ten do
e1actly the opposite,
/ometimes in all : aspects,
Results, i' any, are accordingly,
-n'ortunately, because this
happens so o'ten, it is widely
considered as normal and
acceptable behaviour,
Real li'e 2discussions2 are o'ten
rather debates,
5n a debate, the participants
try to convince each other
(or at least their audience)
o' their opposing positions,
rguments are used
to attack or de'end positions,
rather than to arrive at
well-'ounded conclusions,
889
0ack to the discussions,
There is no practical way to ensure
that discussion participants behave
2ideally2 as outlined 2 pages be'ore,
0ut there are at least & approaches
that can help,
%, education and training, especially
when started at early age

2, discussion rules

&, visuali4ation techni*ues
6hen combined, these approaches
bring ideal discussions within reach,
0ut already one o' them alone can
make a discussion better,
88:
pproach % re*uires long-term
thinking and much preparation,
pproaches % and 2
re*uire either authority
over (potential) participants,
or their 'ull cooperation,
pproach & does neither,
6hether you are a participant or
an audience member, you can
always listen to what is said and
make a diagram o' it,
3ore precisely, you can:
- 'ollow the discussion
- e1tract claims, arguments and
evaluations 'rom it
- convert that in'ormation into
visual 'orm (a diagram)
- make the diagram(s) available
to participants and audience
88<
0ut how can a diagram help to
make a discussion better7
good discussion support
diagram does not reproduce
verbal smoke screens,
other rhetorical tricks, insults
and o''-topic statements,
"ence it can give better overview,
clarity and 'ocus,
nd once the participants see
that an argument has been
registered in a diagram, they may
re'rain 'rom repeating it,
The 2ideal discussion2 aspects
%, &, 8, maybe 9, and de'initely :
could bene'it 'rom all this,
lot more could be said about
discussions, 0ut that is beyond
the scope o' this te1t,
88;
Progress
5ntro done
bout discussions done
#iagrams and reality (yours or mine7) up ne1t
rgument maps
rgument evaluation
rgument evaluation diagrams
850
$o two persons have e1actly the
same perception o' reality,
/omething 5 consider as 'act, you
might consider as someone2s
opinion, /omething you consider
as valid conclusion, 5 might
consider 'ar-'etched, nd so on,
This can easily lead to
misunderstandings, con'usion
and@or con'licts,
To avoid these, the diagram
maker (ideally: all discussion
participants) must understand the
di''erence between observations
and interpretations,
Aour observations are what your
'ive senses tell your mind,
Aour interpretations are what
your mind makes o' that,
85%
852
Observations vs. interpretations
(eamples!
The man smiled a'ter he boarded the train,
The man was happy a'ter he boarded the train,
The man was happy because he didn2t have to wait 'or the ne1t train,
smiled a'ter he boarded the train, wickedly The man
These satellite photos show troops leaving their usual positions,
prove that an attack is imminent, These satellite photos
=ig, ?,%a : observations vs, interpretations (e1amples)
The green bo1es
contain observations
(source: the eyes),
Aellow bo1es
contain interpretations
(source: the mind),
Bbservations are easier to
agree on than interpretations,
and generally provide
more reliable in'ormation,
85&
Observations vs. interpretations
(eamples!
The man smiled a'ter he boarded the train,
The man was happy a'ter he boarded the train,
The man was happy because he didn2t have to wait 'or the ne1t train,
smiled a'ter he boarded the train, wickedly The man
These satellite photos show troops leaving their usual positions,
prove that an attack is imminent, These satellite photos
=ig, ?,%b : observations vs, interpretations (e1amples)
$ote that
%00C pure observations
can be hard to obtain,
>uite o'ten there are
traces o' interpretation
blended with observations,
Dust think about the words
2smiled2 and 2usual2
'rom the e1amples,
6hat bearing does all this have
on the making o' argument maps
(and similar diagrams)7
%,
0ecause the diagram maker
needs to summari4e@rephrase
arguments presented by others,
such diagrams cannot be
2observation only2,
2,
"owever, i' the diagram maker
'ollows a suitable code o' conduct,
the diagram will convey
a neutral view,
858
&,
5' not, such diagrams
could be abused 'or
(public) opinion manipulation,
8,
There'ore it must always
be clear to the audience
who made the diagram,
and which (i' any) code o' conduct
the diagram maker adhered to,
5,
These diagrams will never be
per'ectly true in a scienti'ic or
philosophical sense,
Aet they can be very help'ul
in practice,
855
Progress
5ntro done
bout discussions done
#iagrams and reality (yours or mine7) done
rgument maps up ne1t
rgument evaluation
rgument evaluation diagrams
859
rgument maps can have various
layouts, The ones in this te1t are
optimi4ed 'or easy access,
3ost people will understand them
without e1tra e1planations,
This is important,
because di''icult to read diagrams
o'ten end up not being read, or not
being understood, 5n both cases
they become useless,
Please note that the ne1t pages
do not e1plain how to read
an argument map, but how to
make one,
85:
>uestion with
2 possible answers
(e,g, yes@no)
no
yes
the answer
could be
the answer
could be
85< =ig, ?,2a : argument map (basic structure)
Argument map
(basic structure!
The starting point
'or this type o' argument map
is the discussed *uestion,
0est suited are *uestions
with 2 possible answers,
5' the discussion has already
taken place, but without a clearly
e1pressed topic *uestion, this
*uestion must be 2constructed2
a'terwards,
>uestion with
2 possible answers
(e,g, yes@no)
no
yes
the answer
could be
the answer
could be
85; =ig, ?,2b : argument map (basic structure)
Argument map
(basic structure!
5t is very important that the
*uestion is:
%, precisely phrased
(must be answerable, without
the need 'or lo'ty assumptions)
2, neutrally phrased
(must not indicate
a pre'erred answer)
&, immediately understandable
'or the target audience
>uestion with
2 possible answers
(e,g, yes@no)
no
yes
the answer
could be
the answer
could be
890 =ig, ?,2c : argument map (basic structure)
Argument map
(basic structure!
0ad e1amples:
re young people la4y7
/hould private investors 'inally get
a chance to run our water supply
in'rastructure more e''iciently7
?ood e1ample:
/hould bc +ity sell
its water supply in'rastructure
to private investors7
>uestion with
2 possible answers
(e,g, yes@no)
no
yes
argument 'or 2yes2
argument 'or 2yes2
argument 'or 2no2
argument 'or 2no2
%st order
arguments
main arguments
the answer
could be
the answer
could be
89% =ig, ?,2d : argument map (basic structure)
argument 'or 2yes2
because
because
Argument map
(basic structure!
$e1t, arguments directly
supporting an answer are listed,
They are the main arguments,
ll arguments are colour-coded
according to the answer they
support,
$ote that these colours
must not indicate any pre'erence
(as e,g, red or green would),
>uestion with
2 possible answers
(e,g, yes@no)
no
yes
argument 'or 2yes2
argument against
2yes2-argument
argument against
2yes2-argument
argument 'or 2yes2
argument against
2no2-argument
argument 'or 2no2
argument 'or 2no2
%st order
arguments
sub-arguments
2nd order
arguments
main arguments
the answer
could be
the answer
could be
argument 'or
argument 'or 2no2
892
argument against
2yes2-argument
=ig, ?,2e : argument map (basic structure)
argument 'or 2yes2
because
because
because
but
but
but
Argument map
(basic structure!
3ain arguments are
o'ten rebutted (contra-
dicted) or supported
by sub-arguments
(arguments not directly
re'erring to an answer),
>uestion with
2 possible answers
(e,g, yes@no)
no
yes
argument 'or 2yes2
argument against
2yes2-argument
argument against
2yes2-argument
argument 'or 2yes2
argument against
2no2-argument
argument 'or 2no2
argument 'or 2no2
%st order
arguments
sub-arguments
2nd order
arguments
main arguments
the answer
could be
the answer
could be
argument 'or
argument 'or 2no2
89&
argument against
2yes2-argument
=ig, ?,2' : argument map (basic structure)
argument 'or 2yes2
because
because
because
but
Argument map
(basic structure!
&rd order arguments
are also o'ten present,
8th and 5th order
arguments sometimes,
0eyond that, the
discussion almost
certainly has gone
astray,
but
but
>uestion with
2 possible answers
(e,g, yes@no)
no
yes
argument 'or 2yes2
argument against
2yes2-argument
argument against
2yes2-argument
argument 'or 2yes2
argument against
2no2-argument
argument 'or 2no2
argument 'or 2no2
argument against
argument against
2no2-argument
%st order
arguments
sub-arguments
2nd order
arguments
main arguments
the answer
could be
the answer
could be
argument 'or
argument 'or 2no2
898
argument against
2yes2-argument
argument against
argument against
2yes2-argument
=ig, ?,2g : argument map (basic structure)
&rd order
arguments
argument 'or 2yes2
argument against
argument against
2yes2-argument
because
because
because
but
but
but
but
Argument map
(basic structure!
but
but
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
yes
in an accident, your body
might otherwise hit@inEure
other people in the car
but
tra''ic regulations re*uire
it (depending on country)
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
it looks cooler
not to wear a seat belt
(to some people)
the answer
could be
less than %C
o' all accidents involve
a submerged car
in most places, tra''ic
accidents are much more
likely than such assaults
it can save you 'rom long-
lasting health problems
a'ter an accident
it can save your li'e
in an accident
escape 'rom a car
assaulted by criminals
is easier without seat belt
accident probability
is very low
Argument map
(eample "!
=ig, ?,& : argument map (e1ample %)
the answer
could be
not that low,
i' you spend much time
in a car
but
but but
but
but
but
895
it is inconvenient
not much,
once you are used to it
but
to other people,
not wearing a seat belt
looks stupid
because
because
/hould
personal wealth
be legally limited
to 500 times the
national average7
no
yes
e1treme economic
ine*uality can cause
social unrest
but
social unrest is caused
by poverty, not by wealth
500 times the average
wealth should satis'y
every imaginable need
the *uest 'or 2more2
may serve this purpose,
the *uest 'or 2e1tremely
much2 does not
2more personal wealth2 is
an important driving 'orce
'or economic development
personal wealth is a 'orm
o' personal 'reedom
the answer
could be
personal 'reedom is
actually limited by law
economic development
is no goal in itsel'
most people pre'er
development over
stagnation
this idea is
born 'rom envy
i' envy were an
important 'actor, the limit
would be 'ar lower
such a limit is
hard to implement
there are hundreds o'
implemented regulations
that are more comple1
e1treme wealth gives
too much economic power
to very 'ew persons
e1tremely wealthy persons
can 2buy2 political decisions
e1tremely wealthy persons
o'ten donate much money
'or good causes
with a wealth limit,
donations will increase
(i' only to avoid ta1es)
it is their right to e1ert
in'luence with legal means
these persons are
better *uali'ied than
most others 'or this Eob
economic policy is no Eob
'or a private citi4en
wealth is no proo'
o' competence
Argument map
(eample #!
because
because
=ig, ?,8a : argument map (e1ample 2)
the answer
could be
without a wealth limit,
this in'luence is e1cessive
but
but
but
but
but
but
any distinction between
2more2 and 2too much2
is arbitrary
but
but
but
but
but
but
899
/hould
personal wealth
be legally limited
to 500 times the
national average7
no
yes
e1treme economic
ine*uality can cause
social unrest
but
social unrest is caused
by poverty, not by wealth
500 times the average
wealth should satis'y
every imaginable need
the *uest 'or 2more2
may serve this purpose,
the *uest 'or 2e1tremely
much2 does not
2more personal wealth2 is
an important driving 'orce
'or economic development
personal wealth is a 'orm
o' personal 'reedom
the answer
could be
personal 'reedom is
actually limited by law
economic development
is no goal in itsel'
most people pre'er
development over
stagnation
this idea is
born 'rom envy
i' envy were an
important 'actor, the limit
would be 'ar lower
such a limit is
hard to implement
there are hundreds o'
implemented regulations
that are more comple1
e1treme wealth gives
too much economic power
to very 'ew persons
e1tremely wealthy persons
can 2buy2 political decisions
e1tremely wealthy persons
o'ten donate much money
'or good causes
with a wealth limit,
donations will increase
(i' only to avoid ta1es)
it is their right to e1ert
in'luence with legal means
these persons are
better *uali'ied than
most others 'or this Eob
economic policy is no Eob
'or a private citi4en
wealth is no proo'
o' competence
Argument map
(eample #!
because
because
=ig, ?,8b : argument map (e1ample 2)
the answer
could be
without a wealth limit,
this in'luence is e1cessive
but
but
but
but
but
but
any distinction between
2more2 and 2too much2
is arbitrary
but
but
but
but
but
but
89:
ll arguments must be phrased
concisely, and without indicating
approval or reEection,
Aou can clearly see the lines o'
arguments in either e1ample,
6ith an argument map,
you can understand a discussion
in 2-5 minutes,
6ithout one, you probably would
have to listen or read 'or hours,
nd you might even end up
with con'usion rather than
understanding,
$ote that you also can use
argument maps 'or 2discussions
with yoursel'2, 5n that case, you
could e''ectively clear your head
by making one,

(5t takes about &0-;0 minutes,)
89<
/hould
personal wealth
be legally limited
to 500 times the
national average7
no
yes
e1treme economic
ine*uality can cause
social unrest
but
social unrest is caused
by poverty, not by wealth
500 times the average
wealth should satis'y
every imaginable need
the *uest 'or 2more2
may serve this purpose,
the *uest 'or 2e1tremely
much2 does not
2more personal wealth2 is
an important driving 'orce
'or economic development
personal wealth is a 'orm
o' personal 'reedom
the answer
could be
personal 'reedom is
actually limited by law
economic development
is no goal in itsel'
most people pre'er
development over
stagnation
this idea is
born 'rom envy
i' envy were an
important 'actor, the limit
would be 'ar lower
such a limit is
hard to implement
there are hundreds o'
implemented regulations
that are more comple1
e1treme wealth gives
too much economic power
to very 'ew persons
e1tremely wealthy persons
can 2buy2 political decisions
e1tremely wealthy persons
o'ten donate much money
'or good causes
with a wealth limit,
donations will increase
(i' only to avoid ta1es)
it is their right to e1ert
in'luence with legal means
these persons are
better *uali'ied than
most others 'or this Eob
economic policy is no Eob
'or a private citi4en
wealth is no proo'
o' competence
Argument map
(eample #!
because
because
=ig, ?,8c : argument map (e1ample 2)
the answer
could be
without a wealth limit,
this in'luence is e1cessive
but
but
but
but
but
but
any distinction between
2more2 and 2too much2
is arbitrary
but
but
but
but
but
but
89;
This map shows 2& arguments
and their logical connections,
but would still 'it com'ortably on a
single 8@.etter-si4ed page
(or about hal' that page
when using a typical newspaper
'ont si4e o' <-; pt),
That2s a 'ormat which is easy to
distribute@publish, both on paper or
electronically,
'ter reading an argument map,
you will have a 'irst impression
o' which answer you 'ind better
supported,
#epending on the situation, and
on how clear your impression is,
you must decide whether
closer evaluation is needed,
rgument evaluation is subEect
o' the ne1t pages,
lternatively you could e1tract
the criteria used in arguments,
and put them in a decision matri1
(where the possible answers
become options),
+riteria 'rom the e1ample % map:
- accident survival chances
- health status a'ter accident
- convenience
- coolness o' appearance
(,,,)
Bptions 'rom the e1ample % map:
- wear a seat belt
- don2t wear a seat belt
8:0
Progress
5ntro done
bout discussions done
#iagrams and reality (yours or mine7) done
rgument maps done
rgument evaluation up ne1t
rgument evaluation diagrams
8:%
The result o' an argument
evaluation depends not Eust on
the argument, but also on the
evaluating person,
That2s because di''erent persons
have di''erent reality perceptions
and value systems
(we 'ind di''erent things important),
Bther persons there'ore are
not necessarily mistaken or stupid
Eust because they arrive
at di''erent results,
5' you want to critici4e a 2wrong2
evaluation result, you should make
it clear whether you disagree with
the underlying value system, or
with the evaluation method used,
8:2
$ow let2s have a look
at one o' these methods,
simple and e''icient way
o' evaluating an argument
is to ask and answer yoursel'
three *uestions,
8:&
8:8
777
not valid
%, #o you consider
the argument as true7
no
yes
can2t
answer
=ig, ?,5a: argument evaluation 'lowchart
summari4ed argument takes
usually the 'orm o' a statement,
5' you consider it as true,
perhaps giving it the bene'it o' doubt,
proceed to the 2, *uestion
(ne1t page),
Btherwise the evaluation is
completed,
!ach gray bo1 shows a possible
evaluation result,
Argument evaluation
($lowc%art!
8:5
777
not valid
%, #o you consider
the argument as true7
no
2, #o you consider
it as relevant7
yes
can2t
answer
=ig, ?,5b: argument evaluation 'lowchart
no
can2t
answer
yes
5' you consider the argument as
relevant (having a bearing on the
topic), proceed to the &, *uestion,
gain you may give it
the bene'it o' doubt,
Btherwise the evaluation is
completed,
Argument evaluation
($lowc%art!
8:9
777
valid
F
very important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
important
valid not valid
%, #o you consider
the argument as true7
no
2, #o you consider
it as relevant7
&, "ow important
is it to you7
yes
can2t
answer
=ig, ?,5c: argument evaluation 'lowchart
very important not important important
(de'ault)
no
can2t
answer
yes
$ow your personal value system
kicks in with 'ull strength and
determines your choice,
Argument evaluation
($lowc%art!
8::
777
valid
F
very important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
important
valid not valid
%, #o you consider
the argument as true7
no
2, #o you consider
it as relevant7
&, "ow important
is it to you7
yes
can2t
answer
=ig, ?,5d: argument evaluation 'lowchart
very important not important important
no
can2t
answer
yes
Argument evaluation
($lowc%art!
(de'ault)
5s that true7 Aes, at least somewhat,
5s it relevant7 Aes,
5s it important7 $o, not to me, s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
=ig, ?,9a : e1plicit evaluation e1amples
the answer
could be
8:<
it is inconvenient
&plicit evaluation eamples
valid
F
not important
because
5s that true7 Aes,
5s it relevant7 $o,
5s that true7 $o,
5s that true7 Aes, at least somewhat,
5s it relevant7 Aes,
5s it important7 $o, not to me,
5s that true7 Aes, probably,
5s it relevant7 $ot very, but still yes,
5s it important7 52m not sure,
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
=ig, ?,9b : e1plicit evaluation e1amples
the answer
could be
8:;
seat belts o'ten tear
apart in serious accidents
seat belts add weight
to the car
not valid
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
valid
not valid
it is inconvenient
&plicit evaluation eamples
valid
F
not important
because
These two arguments are here
'or demonstration purposes only,
5s that true7 Aes,
5s it relevant7 $o,
5s that true7 $o,
5s that true7 Aes, at least somewhat,
5s it relevant7 Aes,
5s it important7 $o, not to me,
5s that true7 Aes, probably,
5s it relevant7 $ot very, but still yes,
5s it important7 52m not sure,
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
=ig, ?,9c : e1plicit evaluation e1amples
the answer
could be
8<0
seat belts o'ten tear
apart in serious accidents
seat belts add weight
to the car
not valid
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
valid
not valid
it is inconvenient
&plicit evaluation eamples
valid
F
not important
because
Progress
5ntro done
bout discussions done
#iagrams and reality (yours or mine7) done
rgument maps done
rgument evaluation done
rgument evaluation diagrams up ne1t
8<%
6e know about
argument maps and about
argument evaluation,
.et2s see how we can
bring them together
in a diagram,
8<2
=ig, ?,:a : argument evaluations diagram 8<&
Argument map
(eample "!
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
yes
in an accident, your body
might otherwise hit@inEure
other people in the car
but
tra''ic regulations re*uire
it (depending on country)
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
it looks cooler
not to wear a seat belt
(to some people)
the answer
could be
less than %C
o' all accidents involve
a submerged car
in most places, tra''ic
accidents are much more
likely than such assaults
it can save you 'rom long-
lasting health problems
a'ter an accident
it can save your li'e
in an accident
escape 'rom a car
assaulted by criminals
is easier without seat belt
accident probability
is very low
because
the answer
could be
not that low,
i' you spend much time
in a car
but
but but
but
but
but
it is inconvenient
not much,
once you are used to it
but
to other people,
not wearing a seat belt
looks stupid
because
Argument evaluations
(eample "!
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
yes
in an accident, your body
might otherwise hit@inEure
other people in the car
tra''ic regulations re*uire
it (depending on country)
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
it looks cooler
not to wear a seat belt
(to some people)
the answer
could be
it can save you 'rom long-
lasting health problems
a'ter an accident
it can save your li'e
in an accident
escape 'rom a car
assaulted by criminals
is easier without seat belt
because
the answer
could be
it is inconvenient
because
Bur new diagram starts out
as a copy o' the original
argument map, but without the
sub-arguments,
=ig, ?,:b : argument evaluations diagram 8<8
Argument map
(eample "!
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
yes
in an accident, your body
might otherwise hit@inEure
other people in the car
but
tra''ic regulations re*uire
it (depending on country)
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
it looks cooler
not to wear a seat belt
(to some people)
the answer
could be
less than %C
o' all accidents involve
a submerged car
in most places, tra''ic
accidents are much more
likely than such assaults
it can save you 'rom long-
lasting health problems
a'ter an accident
it can save your li'e
in an accident
escape 'rom a car
assaulted by criminals
is easier without seat belt
accident probability
is very low
because
the answer
could be
not that low,
i' you spend much time
in a car
but
but but
but
but
but
it is inconvenient
not much,
once you are used to it
but
to other people,
not wearing a seat belt
looks stupid
because
Argument evaluations
(eample "!
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
yes
in an accident, your body
might otherwise hit@inEure
other people in the car
tra''ic regulations re*uire
it (depending on country)
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
it looks cooler
not to wear a seat belt
(to some people)
the answer
could be
it can save you 'rom long-
lasting health problems
a'ter an accident
it can save your li'e
in an accident
escape 'rom a car
assaulted by criminals
is easier without seat belt
because
the answer
could be
it is inconvenient
because
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
valid
F
not important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
important
valid
F
very important
valid
$ow there is room ne1t to the
main arguments, That2s where we
put our evaluation results,
=ig, ?,:c : argument evaluations diagram 8<5
Argument map
(eample "!
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
yes
in an accident, your body
might otherwise hit@inEure
other people in the car
but
tra''ic regulations re*uire
it (depending on country)
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
it looks cooler
not to wear a seat belt
(to some people)
the answer
could be
less than %C
o' all accidents involve
a submerged car
in most places, tra''ic
accidents are much more
likely than such assaults
it can save you 'rom long-
lasting health problems
a'ter an accident
it can save your li'e
in an accident
escape 'rom a car
assaulted by criminals
is easier without seat belt
accident probability
is very low
because
the answer
could be
not that low,
i' you spend much time
in a car
but
but but
but
but
but
it is inconvenient
not much,
once you are used to it
but
to other people,
not wearing a seat belt
looks stupid
because
Argument evaluations
(eample "!
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
yes
in an accident, your body
might otherwise hit@inEure
other people in the car
tra''ic regulations re*uire
it (depending on country)
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
it looks cooler
not to wear a seat belt
(to some people)
the answer
could be
it can save you 'rom long-
lasting health problems
a'ter an accident
it can save your li'e
in an accident
escape 'rom a car
assaulted by criminals
is easier without seat belt
because
the answer
could be
it is inconvenient
because
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
valid
F
not important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
important
valid
F
very important
valid
B' course we must consider all
connected sub-arguments when
evaluating a main argument,
0ut usually we don2t need to
include individual sub-argument
evaluations in the diagram,
This way we get a much simpler
diagram than otherwise,
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
yes
in an accident, your body
might otherwise hit@inEure
other people in the car
tra''ic regulations re*uire
it (depending on country)
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
it looks cooler
not to wear a seat belt
(to some people)
the answer
could be
it can save you 'rom
long-lasting health problems
a'ter an accident
it can save your li'e
in an accident
escape 'rom a car
assaulted by criminals
is easier without seat belt
'ulti(part)
argument evaluation
(eample "!
=ig, ?,<a : multi-party argument evaluation
the answer
could be
8<9
it is inconvenient
valid
F
very important
not valid
because
because
valid
F
not important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
important
valid
valid
valid
F
important
valid
valid
F
important
lice 0ob
rgument evaluations, by party
valid
nd there is
room 'or more
than one view,
conclusion: yes conclusion: no
s driver or
passenger in a
moving car,
should you wear
a seat belt7
no
yes
in an accident, your body
might otherwise hit@inEure
other people in the car
tra''ic regulations re*uire
it (depending on country)
escape 'rom
a submerged car
is easier without seat belt
it looks cooler
not to wear a seat belt
(to some people)
the answer
could be
it can save you 'rom
long-lasting health problems
a'ter an accident
it can save your li'e
in an accident
escape 'rom a car
assaulted by criminals
is easier without seat belt
'ulti(part)
argument evaluation
(eample "!
=ig, ?,<b : multi-party argument evaluation
the answer
could be
8<:
it is inconvenient
valid
F
very important
not valid
because
because
valid
F
not important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
important
valid
valid
valid
F
important
valid
valid
F
important
lice 0ob
rgument evaluations, by party
valid
=or lice and 0ob,
this diagram is both
summary and
endpoint o' their
discussion,
6ithout it, they could
easily have an
2endless2 discussion,
conclusion: yes conclusion: no
/hould
personal wealth be
legally limited to
500 times the
national average7
no
yes
e1treme economic
ine*uality can cause
social unrest
500 times the average
wealth should satis'y
every imaginable need
2more personal wealth2 is
an important driving 'orce
'or economic development
personal wealth is a 'orm
o' personal 'reedom
the answer
could be
this idea is
born 'rom envy
such a limit is
hard to implement
e1treme wealth gives
too much economic power
to very 'ew persons
e1tremely wealthy persons
can 2buy2 political decisions
e1tremely wealthy persons
o'ten donate much money
'or good causes
the answer
could be
valid
F
very important
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
F
important
valid
valid
F
important
valid
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
not valid
not valid
not valid
valid
F
very important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
important
valid
F
important
!*ual in'luence
movement
0illionaire2s
association
rgument evaluations, by party
Party G& Party G8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'ulti(part)
argument evaluation
(eample #!
conclusion: yes
8<< =ig, ?,;a : multi-party argument evaluation
conclusion: no conclusion: - conclusion: -
second e1ample,
because
because
/hould
personal wealth be
legally limited to
500 times the
national average7
no
yes
e1treme economic
ine*uality can cause
social unrest
500 times the average
wealth should satis'y
every imaginable need
2more personal wealth2 is
an important driving 'orce
'or economic development
personal wealth is a 'orm
o' personal 'reedom
the answer
could be
this idea is
born 'rom envy
such a limit is
hard to implement
e1treme wealth gives
too much economic power
to very 'ew persons
e1tremely wealthy persons
can 2buy2 political decisions
e1tremely wealthy persons
o'ten donate much money
'or good causes
because
because
the answer
could be
valid
F
very important
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
F
important
valid
valid
F
important
valid
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
not valid
not valid
not valid
valid
F
very important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
important
valid
F
important
!*ual in'luence
movement
0illionaire2s
association
rgument evaluations, by party
Party G& Party G8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'ulti(part)
argument evaluation
(eample #!
conclusion: yes
8<; =ig, ?,;b : multi-party argument evaluation
conclusion: no conclusion: - conclusion: -
?enerally,
a high percentage
o' 2not valid2
evaluations could
indicate a:
- very controversial
*uestion
- closed-minded
party
- bad argument
/hould
personal wealth be
legally limited to
500 times the
national average7
no
yes
e1treme economic
ine*uality can cause
social unrest
500 times the average
wealth should satis'y
every imaginable need
2more personal wealth2 is
an important driving 'orce
'or economic development
personal wealth is a 'orm
o' personal 'reedom
the answer
could be
this idea is
born 'rom envy
such a limit is
hard to implement
e1treme wealth gives
too much economic power
to very 'ew persons
e1tremely wealthy persons
can 2buy2 political decisions
e1tremely wealthy persons
o'ten donate much money
'or good causes
because
because
the answer
could be
valid
F
very important
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
F
important
valid
valid
F
important
valid
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
not valid
not valid
not valid
valid
F
very important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
important
valid
F
important
!*ual in'luence
movement
0illionaire2s
association
rgument evaluations, by party
Party G& Party G8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'ulti(part)
argument evaluation
(eample #!
conclusion: yes
8;0 =ig, ?,;c : multi-party argument evaluation
conclusion: no conclusion: - conclusion: -
$ote that this
diagram partly
reveals each party2s:

- reality perception
(which arguments
do they see as
true and relevant,
hence valid7)

and their

- value system
(how important is
each argument to
them7)
/hould
personal wealth be
legally limited to
500 times the
national average7
no
yes
e1treme economic
ine*uality can cause
social unrest
500 times the average
wealth should satis'y
every imaginable need
2more personal wealth2 is
an important driving 'orce
'or economic development
personal wealth is a 'orm
o' personal 'reedom
the answer
could be
this idea is
born 'rom envy
such a limit is
hard to implement
e1treme wealth gives
too much economic power
to very 'ew persons
e1tremely wealthy persons
can 2buy2 political decisions
e1tremely wealthy persons
o'ten donate much money
'or good causes
because
because
the answer
could be
valid
F
very important
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
F
important
valid
valid
F
important
valid
not valid
valid
F
not important
valid
not valid
not valid
not valid
valid
F
very important
valid
F
not important
valid
F
very important
valid
F
important
valid
F
important
!*ual in'luence
movement
0illionaire2s
association
rgument evaluations, by party
Party G& Party G8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'ulti(part)
argument evaluation
(eample #!
conclusion: yes
8;% =ig, ?,;d : multi-party argument evaluation
conclusion: no conclusion: - conclusion: -
5n a political conte1t,
this diagram type
can serve as
transparency tool,
$ow let2s take a step back
'rom the details and do some
summing up,
3any 2normal2 discussions su''er
'rom empty talk, manipulation
attempts, poor reasoning,
personal insults, hidden agendas
or lack o' 'ocus and overview,
/uch discussions can
take a long time,
without giving use'ul results,
5' the topic is important
and you can choose,
consider this alternative:
%, make an argument map
2, evaluate the main arguments
&, draw your conclusion(s)
Dust 'or yoursel', or
in cooperation with others,
5n most cases you will have well-
'ounded results within %-& hours,
8;2
This is the last page
o' this e1cerpt,
5' you2ve read it: Thank you,