Reason with Reasoning

How good, as Argumentators are we?

When it comes to reasoning, we talk-back, high pitched retorts, howl, bla! bla!, insult the person (his/her relatives), walk-off….

Check-out the types of reasoning, which might help you better-argue.

Happy Reading!

Abductive Reasoning: (The process of creating explanatory hypotheses.)

Abductive reasoning is the process of explaining something that is experienced or observed in some way and where there is no existing knowledge to explain the phenomenon.

Ex: A doctor, meeting a set of symptoms not met before, considers diseases that have similar symptoms and wonders if the presented condition is something similar.

Analogical Reasoning: (Relating things to novel other situations.)

In analogical reasoning, an analogy (relation) for a given thing or situation is found, where the analogy is like the given thing in some way.

Ex: We see a half-hidden person and 'recognize' them as someone we know.

Cause-and-effect reasoning: (Showing causes and resulting effect.)

When you are presenting an argument, show the cause-and-effect that is in operation, helping the other person see why things have happened or will happen as they do.

Ex: Say this- Adding the new additive to fuel will make your car go so further.

Not this- Add our new fuel additive to your car.

Cause-to-effects reasoning: (Starting from the cause and going forward.)

Start with the cause and add the effect or effects afterwards, helping answer the question 'why' something happens, an expectation is set up that something will happen because of it.

Ex: Say this- The girl slapped the boy.

Not this- The boy was slapped by the girl.

Effects-to-cause reasoning: (Starting from the effect and working backward.)

Start with the effect or effects and then work back to the cause of these. You can do this by asking 'why did this happen', creating curiosity and then explaining why.

Ex: Say this- Can I have a cup of coffee? I am very thirsty.

Not this- I am very thirsty. Can I have a cup of coffee?

The Bradford Hill Criteria: (For cause and effect in medical diagnosis.)

Not able to understand, see if you can decipher.

Comparative reasoning: (Comparing one thing against another.)

Comparative reasoning establishes the importance of something by comparing it against something else, as we would find it difficult to evaluate something on a stand-alone basis.

Ex: Compare against a high standard to make something look undesirable. Compare it against a weak example to make it look good.

Conditional reasoning: (Using if...then...)

Be careful about ‘if-then’ statements, you can make statements that are logically false and few people will challenge you.

Criteria reasoning: (Comparing against established criteria.)

Start by defining the criteria by which the outcome of a decision will be judged, and then identify the best decision

Ex: Say this- I guess your wife will want something good-looking. How about this one?

Not this- This is the right one for you!

Decompositional reasoning: (Understand the parts to understand the whole.)

Break the item in question down into its component parts. Analyze those parts and how they fit together. And then draw conclusions about the whole. The biggest trick is in understanding the relationship between the parts.

Ex: I want to find out how a rubic cube operates. I pull it apart to see its hidden workings. By reassembling it slowly, I am able to explain its apparently magical cohesion as a whole in terms of three-dimensional geometry.

Deductive reasoning: (Starting from the general rule and moving to specifics.)

Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts with a general case (assumed hypothesis) which may be well-accepted or it may be rather shakier -- nevertheless, for the argument it is not questioned and deduces specific instances.

Ex: Say this- They are all like that -- just look at him!

Not this- Look at him. They are all like that.

Exemplar reasoning: (Using an example.)

Exemplar reasoning is the use of examples in an argument. The example may be told as a story or may be a short comparator.

Ex: You should go out more often. I have a friend who used to stay in and was never really happy.

Inductive reasoning: (Starting from specifics and deriving a general rule.)

Inductive reasoning, or induction, is reasoning from a specific case or cases and deriving a general rule. It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations.

Ex: Say this- Heating was XXX, lighting was YYY, parts were ZZZ, which adds up to NNN. Yet revenue was RRR. This means we must cut costs!

Not this- We need to cut costs, as our expenditure is greater than our revenue.

Modal logic: (Arguing about necessity and possibility.)

Describe things in terms of possibility and necessity. Also explore how they intertwine.

Ex: Say this- They could come here.

Not this- They will come here.

Traditional logic: (Assuming premises are correct.)

Start with premises that are assumed to be true. Then use only logical rationale to derive a conclusion. Be careful that it is applied correctly. Keep emotion well out of it.

Ex: Say this- All people have potential. You are a person. You have potential.

Not this- Some people have potential. You are a person. You have potential.

Pros-vs-Cons reasoning: (Using arguments both for and against a case.)

Pros-vs-cons reasoning seek to weigh up the arguments for a case (pros) against the arguments against the case (cons).

Ex: Say this- It is useful and cheap, but on the other hand it won't last long and will make you look ungenerous.

Not this- It won't last long and will make you look ungenerous.

Set-based reasoning: (Based on categories and membership relationships.)

Set-based reasoning is founded on Set Theory. Set theory makes careful distinction about what a thing is and what it is not. Its arguments range around whether things are members of named groups or not.

Ex: Say this- He works for Zoho. Zoho people are intelligent. Therefore he is intelligent.

Not this- He works for Zoho and is intelligent.

Systemic reasoning: (The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.)

Understand something by considering it as a whole system. Analyze not just the parts but also the relationships between the parts.

Ex: I argue for a new square in the middle of town by considering the aesthetics of space and the relationships between the empty square and the tall buildings around it. I also consider the dynamics of movement and pauses of people during parts of the day and weekend.

Syllogistic reasoning: (Drawing conclusions from premises.)

We each make many statements in conversation and written statements, implying logical connections between them.

Consider the following statements and conclusion: 

    Statement 1: All men are animals

    Statement 2: Some animals are aggressive

    Conclusion: Some men are aggressive

Now! Now! Now! You know who will reason better. Let the words flow. 

Happy Arguing!