“Reading philosophy is valuable, but students can struggle to keep track of the reasoning. That’s why displaying the map of a philosophical argument can make the subject so much more accessible—especially to students new to the discipline.”
Many philosophy instructors find argument-mapping an effective way of teaching reasoning.
If you’re interested in learning more about it, and trying out some software that you and students can use to map arguments, read the following guest post by Jonathan Surovell (Texas State University) and Dona Warren (University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point).
Two Argument Mapping Tools
by Jonathan Surovell and Dona Warren
Reading philosophy is valuable, but students can struggle to keep track of the reasoning. That’s why displaying the map of a philosophical argument can make the subject so much more accessible—especially to students new to the discipline. By clearly stating the claims that compose an argument, and graphically displaying the connections between those claims, argument mapping makes reasoning more legible. And that, in turn, allows students to grapple with the arguments instead of getting lost in them.
A small number of simple conventions enable argument maps to represent a wide variety of argumentative structures beyond linear lists of premises, lemmas, and conclusions. Students can, therefore, practice analyzing and evaluating more varied forms of argument and discourse.
As the academic year approaches, we draw teachers’ attention to two online argument mapping tools that are available for use: Argumentation.io and Because. Jonathan Surovell created and maintains Argumentation.io and Dona Warren has worked with Simon Cullen on accessibility testing and feature development for Because.
Argumentation.io allows unlimited mapping with the free account. A paid account grants users access to instructional materials and allows users to save, export, and share maps, as well as collaborate on them in real time. Argumentation.io now also includes an initial set of integrated practice-and-feedback tools for efficiently creating questions, quizzes, and reusable question banks. Students can submit answers directly in the app and receive automated feedback, making frequent practice with argument mapping easier to provide.
Because is free to use, with no paid tier, supports .mup files created in programs like MindMup, and stores maps on the user’s own device or Google Drive.
Both Argumentation.io and Because provide learners with an intuitive, user-friendly interface that allows them to map with key commands as well as mouse clicks. And both tools are created and maintained by philosophers who have classroom experience, who are responsive to instructor feedback, and who are committed to making argument mapping both accessible and easy to implement.
See below for an example of the same argument mapped in both Argumentation.io and Because.
A recent review of empirical work indicates that argument mapping enhances critical thinking skills (Nesbit & Liu, 2025), and although argument mapping programs may not be necessary to achieve notable critical thinking gains (Harrell, 2008), the use of such tools appears to enhance the effectiveness of argument mapping instruction (Eftekhari et al., 2016). From a teaching perspective, the authors can testify to four notable benefits to incorporating an argument mapping program into their course: mapping online is significantly faster than mapping on a whiteboard, maps projected onto a screen are easier for students to see, maps created using an online mapping tool can be easily retrieved for development or discussion over multiple class periods, and computer-based mapping can make feedback provision more efficient.
Readers who have questions about Argumentation.io or Because, or who would like to explore ways to include argument mapping in their classes, are warmly welcome to reach out to the authors.
References
Eftekhari, M., Sotoudehnama, E., & Marandi, S. S. (2016). Computer-aided argument mapping in an EFL setting: Does technology precede traditional paper and pencil approach in developing critical thinking? Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9431-z
Harrell, M. (2008). No Computer Program Required. Teaching Philosophy, 31(4), 351–374.
Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2025). Argument Mapping in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Higher Education Quarterly, 79(4), e70063. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70063
Thanks to both creators. Questions:
1. Open source?
2. Specific license?
3. Self-hostable?
Always happy to see argument mapping innovations. Thanks again.
Argumentation.io is closed source.
Because says it’s MIT-licensed but I cannot find the source code. There’s no link on the website and there’s nothing on github either. It would be great if the creators could fix that.
If I understand correctly, you can use standard MindMup software to display the .mup files that Because creates. But it would be great to just use the editor locally.
In any case, I’ll surely consider Because for my upcoming introductory course!
https://github.com/symonh/because
Ah, I missed that. Thank you!
Yes, MIT, https://github.com/symonh/because
I believe neither one uses generative AI, which would be less reliable than a rules-based system when it comes to logic. Is that right?
Hi Patrick, Argumentation.io doesn’t make any use of AI.
The post refers to “automated feedback” on quizzes. By that, I just meant that the instructor can “automate” the process of feedback delivery in the same way as a Canvas or Blackboard quiz, that is, write their own feedback and/or solutions, and set the quiz to display these to a student once the student submits the quiz, the instructor grades it, or the deadline elapses. We’ll be adding to these features over the next year or so.
Excellent! This makes it even more appealing. Good luck with it.
Yes, I was thinking that not using AI to do this would be an attractive feature to emphasize…
Thanks! I did argument mapping quizzes in Canvas for several years, and it worked, but LMSs aren’t set up for that. Creating and editing maps was a hassle, and every submission format had its drawbacks.
While AI makes it possible for me to improve and maintain Because as a side-project, the app itself has no AI features. One important difference between Argumentation.io and Because is that Because is merely a standalone map editor that runs entirely in your browser—Argumentation.io is a much fuller service. If you use Because, there’s no server that processes your data and no way for me to add AI features. More importantly, it means that it’s structurally impossible for me to see the maps you or your students create because they never leave your browser (or Google Drive, if you use the integration).
Why have arrowheads, to indicate direction of support, been eliminated as defaults in these pieces of software? I haven’t done any psychological research in this area, but I would have assumed that use of numbers and spatial positioning to indicate direction of support is more opaque to students than using an arrow. I understand that arrowheads introduce redundancy if spatial positioning and/or numbers are used as conventions to indicate directions of support, but I would have hypothesized that it’s pedagogically useful redundancy.
Hi Conor,
Thanks for the feedback! What you’re saying sounds plausible to me. If anyone else has thoughts on this, I’d love to hear them. I’m definitely open to implementing this in Argumentation.io.
Some “argument maps” have arrows pointing in the opposite direction (from conclusion to premises). I’d initially wanted the default layout to be neutral with respect to the two conventions. But as I look at examples of the conclusion->premise format now, I’m thinking their arrows generally represent something subtly different, something related to essay structure. If that’s right, then maybe there’s no downside to arrows as the default connections between boxes.
But, again, I’d love to hear more feedback on this.
Thanks for this question, Connor. Because allows you to toggle numeric labels and arrowheads on and off, so you can see what works best (it’ll save as your default). You can also control the direction of the arrowheads by selecting a different map theme in the “View” menu. Too, all connectors and labels can be easily customized.
Might be of interest: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003540496-15/argument-mapping-improves-critical-thinking-skills-martin-davies-angelito-calma