 |
|
||||
The precision of an Analysis map clarifies how a particular type of objection works: those objections that bears upon an assumption, rather than on a main claim.
Remember our smoking example? Suppose we had this map:
It is structurally correct, but it doesn't show precisely how the objection works. This map makes it much clearer:
The objection undermines the assumption, rather than the main premise. The person offering it may agree that John enjoys smoking, but doesn't agree that this is a reason for you to smoke.
Note: You might wonder why we've only shown one premise in the objection. Nothing important would be gained by 'unfolding' it (it's a trivial claim connecting 'shouldn't' and 'don't need to'). Only show co-premises that improve or clarify your map.
(Jargon alert! The technical name for these objections is 'inference objections'. You don't need a formal definition to do these exercises, but click here (pdf) if you like that sort of thing).
© Austhink 2007. Rationale Exercises version 0.1, Sep-07
Note: these exercises are undergoing continual improvement. Next time you come back they might be a bit different.
