How to Write Articles and Essays Quickly and Expertly (2006)
I think about presenting arguments a lot. Arguments are best represented in DAG form; mostly a tree structure, although some premises might support multiple conclusions so it's inherently graph-based (graphical data structure). Because some conclusions are often lemmas supporting further conclusions, arguments can go several levels deep.I like envisioning them with the conclusion on the top and the premises on the bottom, although people often visualize them flipped in another direction.But the trick comes in presenting the argument to someone else, verbally, in a presentation, or through writing. What is the best way to do it?Because your goal isn't just to impart information; it's also to be convincing and to hope that your counterparts get invested in the conclusion.I find that if the conclusion is counterintuitive, then starting with the conclusion can create resistance. People love to interrupt and argue against something they disagree with even if they haven't thought it through.On the other hand, starting with a bunch of premises devoid of context can just feel unrooted.I guess I generally try to analyze the argument to find the highest (closest to conclusion) points that are not controversial, start with those, and then try to talk about the surprising conclusion that they imply. It can be a real workout, though, trying to anticipate responses, being open to feedback while still working towards your conclusion.I wonder if this sort of thing is related to any algorithmic concepts, like most efficient ways to walk a DAG.