Reasoning is the process of generating conclusions from evidence or premises. There are three main types of reasoning: inductive reasoning which creates generalizations from examples; deductive reasoning which applies generalizations to specific cases through syllogisms; and fallacies which are errors in reasoning. Inductive reasoning uses examples, causes, signs, comparisons, or authority to form conclusions while deductive reasoning uses major and minor premises to logically deduce a conclusion.

1. CHAPTER 12:
REASONING
By: Natalie Lozano

2. WHAT IS REASONING?
 Reasoning is the process of creating or
generating conclusions from evidence or
premises.
 As humans we want to know what
information means and what we can do with it.

3. THREE TYPES OF
REASONING
 Inductive Reasoning – how we create generalizations about
people, events, and things in our environment.
 Deductive Reasoning – how we apply those generalizations
 Fallacies – errors in reasoning

4. INDUCTIVE REASONING
 There are five ways to do this:
 By example
 By cause
 By sign
 By comparison
 By authority

5. EXAMPLE REASONING
 Involves using specific instances as a basis for making a valid
conclusion. There must be sufficient number of examples to justify
the generalized conclusion. The examples must be typical of the
whole. Important counterexamples must be accounted for. The
examples must be relevant to the time period of your argument.
 Ex: I have an iPhone, iPod, and a mac and they work well so I
would be generalizing all apple products are good.

6. CAUSAL REASONING
 Based on the idea that for every action there is a reaction. The goal is to figure
out how or why something happened.
 The cause must be capable of producing the effects
described, and vice versa. Cumulative causal reasoning increases
the soundness of the conclusion. Counter causal factors must
be accounted for.
 Ex: A chef at a restaurant is good because they have a
Master’s Degree in the culinary field.

7. SIGN REASONING
 Involves inferring a connection between two related things, so that
the presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of
the other. Other substance/attribute relationship must be considered.
Cumulative sign reasoning produces a more
probable connection.

 Ex: Football on television is a sign Fall has arrived.

8. COMPARISON REASONING
 Also known as reasoning by analogy involves drawing comparisons
between two similar things, what is correct about one is correct about
the other. There are two types of comparisons:
• Figurative comparison- attempts to link similarities between two
cases with different classifications.
• Literal comparison- attempts to
establish a link between similar
classifications. Ex: you can compare a
Ford compact to a Toyota compact.

9. REASONING FROM
AUTHORITY
 Is used when a person argues that a particular claim is justified because
it’s held or advocated by a credible source. It can be used in two ways: first
you can ask that an argument be accepted simply because someone you
consider an authority advocates it, second you can support the argument
with the credibility of another person.
 Ex: a salesperson trying to sell you
something that is good just because a
famous person uses it.

10. DEDUCTIVE REASONING
 the process of reasoning from general statements to a certain and logical conclusion
related to that conclusion. It has three parts: a major premises, a minor premises, and
a conclusion. This is called syllogism. Ex: all telemarketers are
obnoxious.
 Major premise is a general statement.
 Minor premise specific instance related
to the major premise.
 Conclusion derived from minor premise
related to major premise.

11. FALLACY
 An error in reasoning, it differs from factual error, which is simply
being wrong about the facts. There are a few that are most commonly
used in everyday argumentations.
• False dilemma- seeing something as “black and white”. Ex: if you
love me you’ll have sex with me.
• Appeal of emotion- when someone manipulates peoples emotions to
get them to except a claim.
• Appeal of ignorance- the argument lacks evidence for evidence to the
contrary. Ex: no evidence that God doesn’t exist, therefore, God
must exist.