PART TWO

READ CHAPTER 5 TO 7 AND CREATE A RESUME

This chapter and the next discuss the ways in which we can avoid errors in reasoning, both
initially, in developing our ideas, and then when planning them using the analytical
structure format, therefore, can be regarded as a 'checkpoint' at which we can stop and
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of our own arguments and explanations, and then
improve them, before fully expressing them in a narrative flow.

Smart thinking requires, first of all, that our claims be well formed. Before we even think
about how the links between claims might develop and before we even consider whether or
not our claims are acceptable, we need to write or speak clear claims. While this task is
similar to all clear writing or speaking, it is not exactly the same.

Hence, writing well-formed claims will always require some consideration of both the
surface and hidden meanings of the words from which these claims are constructed
meanings that are created differently in different contexts. Connotations can never be
controlled completely. We could try to use 'definitions', but definitions themselves give rise
to even more connotations (since they, too, are made up of words). Alternatively, you can
establish (to a large extent) the interpretive context within which you want the meaning of
your words to emerge. Either way, you need to consider the possible interpretive contexts
that affect your choice of words.

Claims always involve, implicitly or explicitly, some statement of the scope and certainty
of the information they contain. Well formed claims always state their scope and certainty
explicitly. For example, Australians took part in military style operations against
indigenous Australians' is unclear. How many all of them, some, a few? Where did this
occur? And for how long? Whatever you wish to say about this issue (and there are
competing views among historians), a well-formed claim should try to make clear what you
are asserting. Hence, (for example) 'Many colonial Australian settlers took part in military-
style operations against indigenous Australians throughout the nineteenth century, in
different parts of the country' is a better formed claim.
Writing well-formed and well-founded claims is only half the task of effective reasoning.
The links between these claims must also be well made if our overall argument or
explanation is to be strong. Otherwise our conclusion will not be acceptable, or the
explanation of it will be unconvincing. At each stage, as discussed in chapter 5, we will
need to consider the way that the context of our reasoning will affect our judgments about
its effectiveness.

A reason for a conclusion is very unlikely to consist in a single claim. No matter how we
might state it in short-hand, it is, analytically, a complex interaction of many ideas and
implications.

The conclusion is about universities and free education, while the reason introduces some
new ideas: economic benefit and a well educated population. While the link between these
two ideas and the conclusion might seem obvious, the purpose of reasoning is to avoid
assuming the 'obvious' by carefully working through the connections between the various
ideas in the initial statement of our reason.

We tend to imagine that strong reasoning involves understanding and using a number of
different reasons for our conclusion, giving our arguments and explanations intellectual
breadth. This view has considerable merit (and we examine it in more detail in the next
section), but it does not mean that we can ignore the requirement to argue and explain in
depth. Learning to 'unpack' what we initially think of as a straightforward, simple reason
and to express it as a number of distinct, but dependent, premises is the only way to make
sure our reasoning is not too shallow.

If, in unpacking our reason and turning it into premises, we leave out a premise that should
(analytically speaking) be there, then we have made a serious error. Such a claim would not
be 'missing' exactly, but rather would be implied by the connection between the claims that
are explicitly stated. That we do often 'leave out' some of these premises is a reflection of
the difficulty of thinking deeply enough about complex issues. When we do, it is usually
because we have unconsciously assumed some complex relationship that, in fact, needs
more open analysis.
But what if the connection between a premise and a conclusion is not obvious? A crucial
smart thinking skill is the ability to think through how evidence relates to a conclusion, and
how apparently irrelevant material does indeed help to prove or establish a conclusion.
Making sure premises are relevant to a conclusion requires careful analysis of the possible
connections between them.

You have learnt about the difference between induction and deduction: the most important
point to remember from this comparison is that some kinds of reasoning are about the
inherent logic of the way we describe the world in words: that there are logical
relationships built into claims which, necessarily, lead to other claims. Now this kind of
reasoning is not investigative but is the foundation on which inductive reasoning (where
you do observe and investigate the world) is based. You have also learnt about
propositional logic which, again, is all about the way you can use a claim that proposes how
two other claims are related. Whether or not, in the narrative flow, you actually write a
claim in the standard 'if/then' format doesn't matter: very often, when we reason, we are
using propositions that, if we rewrote them more accurately, would have to be in that form.
CONCEPTUAL MAP

REASONING

Is the generation or evaluation of claims in relation

to their supporting arguments and evidence. The
ability to reason has a fundamental impact on one's
ability to learn from new information and
experiences because reasoning skills determine
how people comprehend, evaluate, and accept
claims and arguments.

Is divided in

Formal reasoning Informal reasoning

Formal reasoning is used to Informal reasoning refers to

evaluate the form of an argument,
and to examine the logical
relationships between conclusions
and their supporting assertions
attempts to determine what
information is relevant to a
question, what conclusions are
plausible, and what degree of
support the relevant information
provides for these various
conclusions.
 Deductive reasoning Inductive reasoning

In deductive reasoning, your In an inductive argument, unlike

conclusion states with certainty a
relationship between two or more
premises. It has to be certain,
because it simply makes explicit a
relationship that is already there
(but not directly obvious) in the
combination of the claims that are
serving as premises.
deduction, if the premises are true,
then the conclusion is only probably
true and how big a chance that it is
true depends on the weight of
evidence presented in the premises.

Reasoning from analogy

An analogy is a special form

of reasoning, which has some
similarities with reasoning
from specific cases. Reasoning
by analogy involves drawing
an equally specific conclusion
from specific premises via a
comparison of like aspects.