LESSON 8.

THE STRUCTURE OF REASONING

INTRODUCTION

Reasoning is the ability to think logically to formulate fair judgements and justify a position. In other
words, it is about identifying, analyzing and evaluating arguments. Debaters, and others have been concerned
with the structure of reasoning. In this, lesson we will go over deductive and inductive reasoning. By
understanding these structures for the purpose of analysis, we can apply the appropriate tests of formal
validity and of rhetoric to the reasoning we encounter as we explore a problem, to the reasoning we develop
for our own case, and to the reasoning we meet in our opponent’s case.

Learning Outcomes: At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

a. determine the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning,

b. recognize the importance and role of the elements of an argument,
c. determine the difference between and among the elements of an argument, and
d. apply deductive and inductive reasoning, and the other elements of an argument in later debate.

PRE-ACTIVITY

Read and analyze the examples below. Which one used deductive reasoning? Inductive reason?

The chair in the living room is red. The chair in the All cats have claws.
dining room is red. The chair in the bedroom is Ragdoll is a cat.
red. All the chairs in the house are red. Therefore, Ragdoll has claws.
All men are mortal. Every cat that you've observed purrs.
Harold is a man. Therefore, all cats must purr.
Therefore, Harold is mortal.

CONTENT FOCUS AND INTERACTION

Before you continue reading, watch a clip from Monty Python Witch Burning Trial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2xlQaimsGg&t=4s and analyze their reasoning. Was it deductive or
inductive?
 Deductive/deduction reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. It starts out with a general statement,
or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion or it moves from
generalities to specific conclusions (Bradford, 2017). It allows you to take information from two or more
statements and draw a logically sound conclusion.

Steps in deductive reasoning

1. Initial assumption. Deductive reasoning begins with an assumption. This assumption is usually a
generalized statement that if something is true, then it must be true in all cases.
 2. Second premise. A second premise is made in relation to the first assumption. If the first
statement is true, then the second related statement must also be true.

3. Testing. Next, the deductive assumption is tested in a variety of scenarios.

4. Conclusion. Based on the results of the test, the information is determined to be valid or invalid.

Examples:

1. Christmas is always December 25th

Today is December 25th.
Therefore, it’s Christmas.

2. Classes are suspended if the Public Storm Warning Signal is 3.

Today is signal number 3.
Therefore, classes today are suspended.

3. Criminal offences are unlawful

Theft is a criminal offence
Therefore, theft is unlawful.

However, deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true. It is
possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If the generalization is
wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue (an argument may be valid logically
but it is untrue because the original statement is false).
Examples:
1. All bald men are grandfathers.
Harold is bald.
Therefore, Harold is a grandfather.

2. All zebras have stripes.

Tigers have stripes.
Therefore, tigers are zebras.

 Inductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that involves drawing a general conclusion from a set of
specific observations. Some people think of inductive reasoning as “bottom-up” logic, because it
involves widening specific premises out into broader generalizations. We go from the specific to the
general. Inductive reasoning is a type of logical thinking that involves forming generalizations based
on specific incidents you have experienced, observations you have made, or facts you know to be true
or false.

Examples:

1. Every time I’ve walked by that dog, it hasn’t tried to bite me. (premise)
So, the next time I walk by that dog it won’t try to bite me. (conclusion)

2. The police said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.

3. The witness said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.
 4. Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the murder. John’s fingerprints are on
the murder weapon. John confessed to the crime. So, John committed the murder.

However, even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the
conclusion to be false. The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements. See the
examples below.
1. Harold is a grandfather.
Harold is bald.
Therefore, all grandfathers are bald.

2. All the ducks I have seen are white.

Therefore, all ducks are white.

 The Elements of Any Argument

a. Claims. The claim(s) element of the argument is the conclusion you are trying to establish by
your argument. Your claim is your main point. It should either be clearly conceptual (seeking to
change how we think) or clearly pragmatic (seeking to change how we act). Claims should
require good reasons. Audiences should be able to disagree with your claim and, by extension, to
be convinced and converted by your evidence. Your claim might be the proposition itself.

Example: Resolved: That the Balikatan Exercise should be revoked.

More about Claims

 Make sure your readers can recognize why your claim is significant.
 Ensure that your claim is clear and concise. Readers should be able to tell what is at stake
and what principles you intend to use to argue your point.
 Confirm that the claim accurately describes the main principles of the argument to follow.
 Moderate your claim with appropriate qualifiers like "many", "most", "often", in place of
"all", "always", etc.

Evaluating Good Claims

 Your solution is possible.

 Your solution is ethical (moral, legal, fair, etc.).
 Your solution is prudent – it takes into consideration both the problem you seek to resolve
and the possible ramifications of your proposal.

b. Grounds. Once you have made a claim, you must advance grounds or evidence and reasoning to
establish the foundation of your claim. You have to provide good reasons to establish that your
claim is solid and reliable. The grounds represent what you have to go on. In the simplest terms,
reasons answer the question: "Why are you making that claim?" Evidence offers tangible support
for reasons.

Hence, you will need to choose the reasons that support your evidence that are also the most
likely to convince your specific readers or listeners. Evidence should be reliable and based upon
authoritative and trustworthy research and sources. It should be appropriately cited, and ample
 enough to convince. Evidence should also be designed to appeal to your target audience's values
and priorities.

c. Warrants. Once you have made a claim and indicated the grounds for that claim, you must
provide a warrant—evidence and reasoning advanced to justify the move from the grounds to the
claim. You need to establish that the evidence and reasoning you have offered as grounds apply in
this particular instance.

To be convincing, the reasons and evidence you present in support of your claim need to be
connected through warrants. Warrants express a general belief or principle in a way that
influences or explains our judgments in specific cases.

Example:

Expressing that “when you take the time to do a thing properly, you don't make mistakes” –
the saying provides a practical warrant for an argument like: "It is never a good idea to hurry
a task. Careless mistakes take longer to fix than it would to do things right the first time."

Warrants express justifying principles, shared beliefs, or general assumptions. They are the
spoken or unspoken logic that connects your reasons to your evidence.

More on Clear Warrants

Warrants connect your reasons to your claim in logical ways. Whether a warrant is assumed
or implied, it is still crucial that the audience be able to recognize your warrant and be able to
determine that they agree with or accept your warrant.

Questions for Determining Good Warrants

 Do readers know the warrant already?

 Will all readers think it is true?
 Will they see its connection to this circumstance or situation?
 If they think it is both valid and appropriate, will they think it applies to their family,
corporation, or community?

Example: Warranting: A Specific Case

Consider a case when an audience might not accept your argument unless it first accepts
your warrant. See the following discussion between a mother and her child.

Child (to mother): "I need new shoes."

Mother: "But why, what are your reasons?"
Child: "Because all the other kids have them." X
Child: "Because red is 'in' this season and my shoes are blue." X
Mother: "Sorry, but I don't accept your argument that you need new shoes."

Warrants require common ground or shared assumption. In the example above, the
success of the child's argument depends upon his mother's sharing the values and
assumptions upon which the argument for new shoes is based.
 Consider a situation in which the child's previous reasons had not convinced his mother to
accept his argument, and you can see how compelling reasons and evidence can be developed
alongside shared warrants. See the example below.

Child: "I need new shoes because these ones have holes in them and it's the rainy
season."√
Mother: "Well why didn't you say so?! I agree that you shouldn't be walking around with
wet feet!"

We are most likely to accept an argument when we share a warrant. In this case, it is
unstated, but implied: Warrant = When shoes no longer protect the feet from stones and
weather, it is time to buy new ones.

If you believe in a general principle stated about general circumstances (for example,
"People who fall asleep at work probably aren't getting enough sleep at home".), then you are
likely to link a specific instance (of falling asleep while reading) with a specific conclusion
(that you haven't gotten adequate rest). Warrants here can be defined as general truths
that lead us to accepted conclusions.

Grounds Warrant Claim

Terrorists commit terrorism to Sensational media give Banning sensational media
gain publicity. terrorists publicity. will reduce terrorism.

d. Backing. Your warrant will not be accepted merely on your say; you have to provide backing—
additional evidence and reasoning to support your warrant. Warrants are not self-validating.
Therefore, you need to provide additional evidence and reasoning to sustain your warrant in the
form of backing. Simply put, backing refers to any additional support of the warrant.

e. Modal Qualifications. When you have considered the grounds, warrant, and backing offered in
support of your claim, you are in a position to qualify that claim — that is, to express the degree
of strength that you can attach to your claim. The degree of strength, or modal qualification,
you can attach to your claim may vary from certainty to possibility.

f. Rebuttals. Rebuttal involves introducing evidence and reasoning to weaken or destroy

another’s claim. Rebuttal may be seen as an element of argument that may block or impede the
movement of argument from grounds to claim and force you to reconsider and to define more
precisely the degree of cogency or intensity that you assign to your claim.

References:

Bradford, A. 2017. Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning. https://www.livescience.com/21569-

deduction-vs-induction.html
IEP Staff. Deductive and Inductive Arguments. https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
ENGL001: English Composition. https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=25780&forceview=1