Argument Mapping

Argument mapping involves visually representing the structure of reasoning surrounding a particular problem or question. It helps students organise complex issues and understand how individual arguments relate to one another. As a result of the analysis, students create a structure presenting the main claim, supporting arguments, counterarguments, and the relationships between them.

The method develops critical and analytical thinking, teaches students to distinguish opinions from arguments, and demonstrates how to construct a logical line of reasoning. It is particularly useful when working with complex, multi-faceted, and controversial topics. It can also serve as a preparatory stage for a debate, essay, or decision-making task, helping students organise their thinking before moving on to more advanced forms of work.

Course: Business Strategy
Topic: Marketplace Model
Students analyse a strategic transformation decision: the shift from a traditional business model to a platform-based model. Instead of producing a simple list of arguments, they create an advanced argument map that includes weights, dependencies, and risks.

Introduction (5 min)
The teacher presents the context: a company is considering a transformation towards a digital platform model, such as a marketplace. The decision involves significant risk, but also considerable growth potential.

Defining the Claim and Criteria (10 min)
Teams define the main claim, for example: The company should transform its business model into a platform-based model within two years. They then establish decision-making criteria, such as:
• revenue potential
• operational risk
• implementation costs
• impact on customers
• competitive advantage

Building the Map (20 min)
Students create an argument map using a more advanced structure:
• Level 1: Main claim
• Level 2: Arguments for and against, linked to specific criteria
• Level 3: Evidence and data, such as reports, company examples, and numerical indicators
• Level 4: Counterarguments and risks

In addition, students assign weights to arguments, for example on a scale from 1 to 5, indicating their importance in the decision-making process. They also assess the level of data uncertainty, such as high or low certainty, and connect arguments with arrows to illustrate relationships and dependencies between them.

Decision and Justification (10 min)
Teams decide and justify it based on the weight of the arguments, the quality of the available data, and the analysis of risks.

Comparing Approaches (15 min)
Groups present their maps, while the teacher moderates a discussion showing that the same data may lead to different decisions and that the assumptions adopted, as well as the way they are interpreted, play a crucial role.

• With more advanced students who are able to work independently with arguments and sources.
• In problem-based and analytical classes, especially before a debate, essay, or decision making task.
• In small-group work (2–5 students), where arguments can be developed and organised collaboratively.

• When students do not yet have a basic understanding of the subject area.
• When there is insufficient time or space for analysing and organising arguments.
• When the focus is on the efficient delivery of new content rather than analysis and discussion.

• Students may create maps as lists of opinions rather than structured arguments → require a clear distinction between claim, argument, evidence, and conclusion.
• Students may use AI without checking the data → require them to cite sources and justify each key argument.

Easier → Provide the claim, the structure of the map, and sample arguments. Limit the number of elements (e.g. 2–3 arguments for and against).

More Challenging → Ask students to define the problem independently and to design and justify the entire structure of the argument map.

• Start with one clearly formulated claim or question.
• Require every argument to be supported by evidence, such as data, examples, or reliable sources.
• Encourage students to include counterarguments.
• Visualise relationships between arguments, for example through arrows or grouping.
• Always move from the map towards a conclusion or decision.

Formative Assessment
The teacher reviews a draft version of the argument map, including the main claim, supporting arguments, evidence, counterarguments, and the connections between them. Developmental feedback is provided by identifying which elements are logically linked, where additional evidence or justification is needed, and which relationships require further clarification. Students use the feedback to improve the structure of the map, strengthen the evidence base, and refine their final conclusion.

Summative Assessment
Assessment focuses on the final argument map together with a brief justification of the decision or position taken. Assessment criteria include the clarity of the main claim, the relevance of the arguments, the use of evidence, consideration of counterarguments, the logic of the connections between elements, and the quality of the final conclusion.