3 Added a wiki example for "Diagramming an argument" in a "tree like" way.
source | link

Early in most logic textbooks you find what I see as a very useful tool for understanding arguments called "argument diagramming." This is where you find the premises and conclusions, give them numbers, and it reveals the structure of the argument in a tree like format. Example:(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map) under "Representing an argument as an argument map/ Diagramming written text"

These arguments are the majority of the arguments I hear from people when they provide reasons for a conclusion. I don't see, however, how these arguments prove the conclusion. In propositional logic, for example, the conclusion is step by step arrived at from the premises. In the arguments used in diagramming, the reasoner just states a bunch of facts and then states a conclusion with no foreseeable connection other than intuition or belief or unstated premises. So myMy question is this,

What is the connection? Can these arguments be translated somehow to propositional/predicate logic? ThankHow can you determine if these are valid arguments.Thank you.

Early in most logic textbooks you find what I see as a very useful tool for understanding arguments called "argument diagramming." This is where you find the premises and conclusions, give them numbers, and it reveals the structure of the argument in a tree like format. Example:(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map) under "Representing an argument as an argument map/ Diagramming written text"

These arguments are the majority of the arguments I hear from people when they provide reasons for a conclusion. I don't see, however, how these arguments prove the conclusion. In propositional logic, for example, the conclusion is step by step arrived at from the premises. In the arguments used in diagramming, the reasoner just states a bunch of facts and then states a conclusion with no foreseeable connection other than intuition or belief or unstated premises. So my question is this,

What is the connection? Can these arguments be translated somehow to propositional/predicate logic? Thank you.

Early in most logic textbooks you find what I see as a very useful tool for understanding arguments called "argument diagramming." This is where you find the premises and conclusions, give them numbers, and it reveals the structure of the argument in a tree like format. Example:(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map) under "Representing an argument as an argument map/ Diagramming written text"

These arguments are the majority of the arguments I hear from people when they provide reasons for a conclusion. I don't see, however, how these arguments prove the conclusion. In propositional logic, for example, the conclusion is step by step arrived at from the premises. In the arguments used in diagramming, the reasoner just states a bunch of facts and then states a conclusion with no foreseeable connection. My question is this,

What is the connection? Can these arguments be translated somehow to propositional/predicate logic? How can you determine if these are valid arguments.Thank you.

2 Added a wiki example for "Diagramming an argument" in a "tree like" way.
source | link

Early in most logic textbooks you find what I see as a very useful tool for understanding arguments called "argument diagramming." This is where you find the premises and conclusions, give them numbers, and it reveals the structure of the argument in a tree like format. Example:(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map) under "Representing an argument as an argument map/ Diagramming written text"

These arguments are the majority of the arguments I hear from people when they provide reasons for a conclusion. I don't see, however, how these arguments prove the conclusion. In propositional logic, for example, the conclusion is step by step arrived at from the premises. In the arguments used in diagramming, the reasoner just states a bunch of facts and then states a conclusion with no foreseeable connection other than intuition or belief or unstated premises. So my question is this,

What is the connection? Can these arguments be translated somehow to propositional/predicate logic? Thank you.

Early in most logic textbooks you find what I see as a very useful tool for understanding arguments called "argument diagramming." This is where you find the premises and conclusions, give them numbers, and it reveals the structure of the argument in a tree like format. These arguments are the majority of the arguments I hear from people when they provide reasons for a conclusion. I don't see, however, how these arguments prove the conclusion. In propositional logic, for example, the conclusion is step by step arrived at from the premises. In the arguments used in diagramming, the reasoner just states a bunch of facts and then states a conclusion with no foreseeable connection other than intuition or belief or unstated premises. So my question is this,

What is the connection? Can these arguments be translated somehow to propositional/predicate logic? Thank you.

Early in most logic textbooks you find what I see as a very useful tool for understanding arguments called "argument diagramming." This is where you find the premises and conclusions, give them numbers, and it reveals the structure of the argument in a tree like format. Example:(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map) under "Representing an argument as an argument map/ Diagramming written text"

These arguments are the majority of the arguments I hear from people when they provide reasons for a conclusion. I don't see, however, how these arguments prove the conclusion. In propositional logic, for example, the conclusion is step by step arrived at from the premises. In the arguments used in diagramming, the reasoner just states a bunch of facts and then states a conclusion with no foreseeable connection other than intuition or belief or unstated premises. So my question is this,

What is the connection? Can these arguments be translated somehow to propositional/predicate logic? Thank you.

1
source | link

Is there a connection between argument diagramming and formal logic systems such as propositional/ predicate logic?

Early in most logic textbooks you find what I see as a very useful tool for understanding arguments called "argument diagramming." This is where you find the premises and conclusions, give them numbers, and it reveals the structure of the argument in a tree like format. These arguments are the majority of the arguments I hear from people when they provide reasons for a conclusion. I don't see, however, how these arguments prove the conclusion. In propositional logic, for example, the conclusion is step by step arrived at from the premises. In the arguments used in diagramming, the reasoner just states a bunch of facts and then states a conclusion with no foreseeable connection other than intuition or belief or unstated premises. So my question is this,

What is the connection? Can these arguments be translated somehow to propositional/predicate logic? Thank you.