In contrast to the picture of the scheme attached to this note:
we really only need equivalence so that the user can defend a statement that is equivalent to the one that is at the end of a chain of arguments
thus, equivalence should be presented with a double arrow, to make equivalence visually present
as language forms to choose from: "is equivalent to"; "if and only if", "is a sufficient and necessary condition for"
There are two forms of equivalence:
reason and conclusion negated
reason and conclusion affirmed
Form 1. should be available
to defend a negatively formulated reason (so the system creates automatically the correct one in dependence of the reason to be defended)
Both forms should also be available in the beginning of a mapping process when user selects "or do you want to start with an argument scheme?" and when user selects "create a map from a template." In both these situations, the user needs to define, first, whether reasons and claim is affirmed or negated, then, second, select one of the three language forms.
the yellow box with symbolic representation of the argument should pop up as soon as user selects negated or affirmed
equivalence is not expandable: only one reason admitted.
in the beginning of a mapping process when user selects "or do you want to start with an argument scheme?"
In contrast to the picture of the scheme attached to this note:
There are two forms of equivalence:
Form 1. should be available
Both forms should also be available in the beginning of a mapping process when user selects "or do you want to start with an argument scheme?" and when user selects "create a map from a template." In both these situations, the user needs to define, first, whether reasons and claim is affirmed or negated, then, second, select one of the three language forms.