B.5.RA:4.4a.4 - Make the selected structure inspectable

Use a short outline or argument map when the dependencies would otherwise be hard to inspect. Write a claim at each point where someone may need to accept, contest or reuse it. Connect an offered reason to its particular target and explain the inference. The link means support; it does not mean temporal succession, physical causation or part–whole membership. A causal claim can itself be a premise or conclusion.

Put jointly used premises in one reason group. To check the grouping, remove one premise in thought and ask whether the same offered inference still supplies a reason for that target. If its bridge is gone, keep the co-premises linked. If another complete reason remains, show that reason separately. Separate reasons need not each be sufficient for the contemplated use; several weak reasons may be cumulative, and their adequacy remains a subject judgement. Retain common sources or assumptions across groups so that repeating one report does not create independent evidence.

Use A.6.3.RT.OE when the expression obscures the recovered relations. Show an intermediate conclusion at both of its uses and keep an objection attached to the claim or inference it challenges. Preserve source attribution and consequential uncertainties in the outline. Read it back as ordinary reasoning and compare it with the text. If the map seems more certain, more comprehensive or easier to defend, find what was lost or added. A tidy layout cannot settle a competing interpretation.

The selected structure can now be used for criticism. An answer may require changing the structure itself: a supposed eyewitness report can turn out to be an inference from an observed clue, as in :5.5. Return to the interpretation and grouping when that happens, rather than merely adding a negative mark to the first scheme.