Below are four common misconceptions about mapping an argument. Choose any two and briefly explain why each is wrong. When making an analysis and map of another person’s argument, you should correct obvious mistakes. Every line of reasoning in an argument map eventually leads to a conclusion. Unless the speaker actually states a reason, we can’t tell what they are thinking. In analyzing and mapping the statements in an argument, context is not important.

When making an analysis and map of another person’s argument, you should correct obvious mistakes.
In analyzing and mapping the statements in an argument, context is not important.

Explanation:

The argument map is made to present a visual representation of the structure of an argument, showing all the premises, objections, counter-arguments, themes and statements that led to the construction of the given argument. This type of representation is used to support the reasoning and critical thinking of whoever is analyzing the argument.

In this case, whoever analyzes the arch for the construction of maps, must not correct errors, even small and perceptible errors, but must build the map the way the argument was built, even with its mistakes and successes. The context of the argument is very important at this point, since without the context, it is impossible to determine the reasoning and thinking that composed the argument.