Reasoning com 104

{

Reasoning: COM 104

Teresa Cisneros

Reasoning is the process of creating or generating

conclusions from evidence or premises.

Reasoning:• Relates to the reasonableness of an

argument (consistency between evidence and the contention)

• Constructs a logical or rational connection between the evidence and the contention

• Consists of a series of conclusions that say how the evidence and the contention are connected

Inductive Reasoning: the process of reasoning from specifics to a general conclusion related to those specifics-It allows humans to create generalizations about people, events and things in their environment. 5 ways to do this:

-By example, cause, sign comparison and by authority

Example reasoning: involves using specific instances as a basis for making a valid conclusion

Tests for reasoning by example:1. There must be a sufficient number of examples to

justify the generalized conclusion2. The examples must be typical of the whole3. Important counter examples must be accounted for4. The examples must be relevant to the time period of

your argument

Causal reasoning: is based on the idea that for every action there is a reaction

Tests of causal reasoning:1. The cause must be capable of producing the effect

described, and vice versa2. Cumulative causal reasoning increases the

soundness of the conclusion3. Counter causal factors must also be accounted for

Sign reasoning: involves interfering a connection between two related things, so that in presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other

Tests of sign reasoning:1. Other substance/ attribute relationships must be

considered2. Cumulative sign reasoning produces a more probable

connection

Comparison reasoning: is also known as reasoning by analogy

Two types of comparisons:1. Figurative comparisons: attempt to link similarities

between two cases from different classifications2. Literal comparisons: attempt to establish a link

between similar classifications: people to people, cars to cars, states to states

Tests for comparison reasoning:3. To be considered as proof, the analogy must be a

literal one4. The cases need to contain significant points of

similarity5. Cumulative comparison reasoning will produce a

more probable conclusion

Reasoning from authority: is used when a person argues that a particular claim is justified because it is held or advocated by a credible source

Two ways this type of argument can be used:1. You can ask that an argument be accepted simply

because someone you consider an authority advocates it

2. You can support your arguments with the credibility of another person

Tests for reasoning from authority:3. The authority must be credible4. Views of counter authorities must be taken into

account5. Cumulative views of authorities increase the validity of

the reasoning

Deductive reasoning: is the process of reasoning from general statements to a certain and logical conclusion related to that conclusion-A deductive argument has 3 parts: a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion1. The minor premise is a general statement2. The minor premise is a statement of a specific instance related to

the major premise3. The conclusion is the statement derived from the minor premises

relationship to the major premise

Fallacy: is an error in reasoning

Fallacy of the false dilemma: occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them

Fallacy of appeal to emotion: is committed when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true

Fallacy of non-sequitur: describes any unwarranted conclusion, but is most often used when a statement openly contradicts itself and makes no sense

Fallacy of the slippery slope: reduces and argument to absurdity by extending it beyond its reasonable limits

Fallacy of ad hominem: consists of saying that someone’s argument is wrong purely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself

Fallacy of hasty generalization: occurs when an arguer bases a conclusion on too few examples that are not necessarily typical of the conclusion being made

Fallacy of circular reasoning: is the assertion or repeated assertion of a conclusion without giving reasons in its support

Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance: errs by trying to make this argument in a context in which the burden of truth falls on the arguer to show that his or her position is actually true, not just that it has not yet been shown false

Bandwagon Fallacy: refers to joining a cause because of its popularity

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: (after this therefore because of this) is based upon the the mistaken notion simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event

Fallacy of Appeal to Pity: the arguer tries to get people to agree with their conclusion by evoking pity and sympathy either with their situation or the situation of some third party

Straw-Man Fallacy: the arguer attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument

“Logical appeals are powerful forces in persuasion. However, logic alone is rarely sufficient to yield persuasion. Desires and needs of receivers affect and determine what they will accept as logical demonstration. Thus, it is possible for one person to report that he or she is convinced by the logic used while another person remains horrified at the lack of logic presented.” – Kenneth Anderson