The chapter deals with the concept of reasoning as used in daily situations. This chapter develops on the first chapter that introduced the linkage between a claim and evidence in proposing an argument. This chapter seeks to explore the various forms of reasoning that commonly used in daily discussions.
To achieve a conclusive argument capable of winning against all possible limitations, the concept of reasoning is necessary (Inch & Warnick, 2009). The significance of reasoning occupies relevant space in the realms of argumentative discussions since an argument requires that an individual fully offer premises as evidence to qualify a logical conclusion based on viable and reasoned thoughts (Inch & Warnick, 2009).
The term critical thinking refers to an individual’s ability to think logically, rationally, and clearly in given circumstances. It entails the ability of an individual to involve in both independent and reflective thinking.
Research has suggested a significant correlation between communication and critical thinking, since they all work to facilitate each other. Communication entails the transmission of information from a sender to the receiver through a medium or channel. Clearly, the ability to think critically enables an individual to improve his or her expression in the process of formulating and conveying ideas.
The chapter explores the importance of reasoning in the process of argumentation. Reasoning is a logical process that offers one the authority to an arguer to demonstrate a viable conclusion free of errors. In simple terms, reasoning is a necessary element for any argumentation to remain relevant while withstanding the challenges of refutation observed on observed weaknesses.
The concepts employed in the realms of reason illustrate an inferential process of making conclusive arguments based on logical and clear thoughts. These concepts include co existential, cause, generalization, analogy and quasi-logical arguments.
Quasi-logical arguments resemble formal arguments of logic that are usually persuasive because they are simple and clear. Since they are simple and clear arguments, quasi-logical arguments have the capacity to form simpler formulas by creating a relationship between two or more components in the context of formal reasoning (Inch & Warnick, 2009).
An analogy evaluates a relationship between two elements in a process of reasoning. It suggests that since two elements relate in some known similarities, they shall also resemble in other respects unknown to individuals. It is worth noting that an analogy differs in many respects with reciprocity (Inch & Warnick, 2009).
The concept of generalizations holds that what is true of some specific elements of a group is always true to some or all the elements. An example is, because I know of one student in year who smokes all students in level one of study smoke.
Cause arguments. Arguments arising from this concept propose that an event of certain condition always results in another event. Therefore, causal arguments result out of succession, in which one situation happens to pave the way for the other. The characteristic feature of this form of argument is that they have inherent cause-effect.
Co-existential argument refers to an argument emerging from observed features to an observed situation. The argument postulates that inferences are the consequence of either observed or unobserved situations or events (Inch & Warnick, 2009).
In this chapter analysis, the paper diagnoses the case, “Should Violent video Games be banned.” In this case, two students, Harris and Dylan committed a massacre in Columbine High School before they killed themselves. The situation triggered enormous concern from stakeholders since there were no indications that the instance would occur.
After the occurrence of the case, many claimed that the behavior of the students. Firstly, some of the observers linked the behavior with the violent culture of the US. Others noted proposed or claimed that youth’s obsession with violent video games such as “Doom,” and “Wofeinstein 3D” results in violent eruptions among the youth (Inch & Warnick, 2009).
In a bid to explain the case, numerous and conflicting arguments have erupted from among various observers in order to demonstrate the contribution of various facets toward the act in the Columbine school.
For instance, there has emerged much controversy about the influence of the media in the development of a violent group of youth in the US. In response to the public outcry, the US government issued investigative directives to the Centers for Disease and prevention (CDC) to explain the effect of media materials on the rate of violence. This directive relied on the concept of cause argumentation.
In their discussions, Spenser and JP enumerated the case based on the concept of analogy. They argued based on the studies that linked violence and video games (Inch & Warnick, 2009). However, JP differed with Spenser saying that although certain researchers suggest the existence of the correlation, most of the studies have failed to justify this linkage. In his submission, he invokes the irrelevance of generalizations in explaining the case of the massacre, citing different study results as evidence.
In this chapter analysis, the paper explores the importance of reasoning in an argument in very day life. In outlining the importance of reasoning, one should appreciate the connection between an argument and evidence in order to arrive at a conclusive argument. However, critical in this process is the significance of communication capable of laying forth a logical flow of knowledge based on premises of reason.
To facilitate a viable argument in discussions, five basic concepts have served as key elements. Each concept offers one an opportunity to draw inferences from the underlying relationships created between various elements of an argument. These concepts include co existential, cause, analogy, quasi-logical, and generalization.
Inch, E. S., & Warnick, B. (2009). Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use of Reason in Argument. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.