CHAPTER 6

TYPES OF REASONING

In this chapter we will describe different types of reasoning that are relevant to
teaching and learning proof. Types of reasoning have been described in the lite-
rature on philosophy and logic, and we will draw on that literature to make some
initial comparisons. However, human thinking is more complex than the abstractions
of logic can account for, so we will elaborate our descriptions with reference to the
thinking of students. We will also make specific links to mathematics education
research that has made special reference to one or more types of reasoning.
Recall that in the introduction to Part 2 we referred to Reid’s model of the
relationship between needs, reasoning and proof. In this chapter we will refer back
to that model when describing each type of reasoning, in order to note connections
to needs.
As you read this chapter you may want to reflect on these questions:
– What kinds of reasoning are most important to be aware of when teaching proof ?
– How does the terminology used to describe reasoning in the proof research
literature affect how one interprets that literature?
Four types of reasoning will be our focus here: deductive reasoning, inductive
reasoning, abductive reasoning and reasoning by analogy. One way of distinguishing
between these is by looking at how they use cases, rules, and results. A case is a
specific observation that a condition holds. A condition describes an attribute of
something, or a relation between things. The statement “Chino is a dog” is a case,
in which being a dog is the condition. A rule is a general proposition that states that
if one condition occurs then another one will also occur. “Dogs are animals” is a
rule. The conditions “being a dog” and “being an animal” are linked. A result is a
specific observation, similar to a case, but referring to a condition that depends on
another one linked to it by a rule. “Chino is an animal” is a result in this example.
In deductive reasoning a case and a rule imply a result. “Chino is a dog” and
“Dogs are animals” imply “Chino is an animal”. In inductive reasoning a case and
a result (or many similar cases associated with many similar results) lead to a rule.
“Chino is a dog” and “Chino is an animal” lead to “Dogs are animals”. In abductive
reasoning a result and a rule lead to a case. “Chino is an animal” and “Dogs are
animals” lead to “Chino is a dog”.
Symbolically these three types of reasoning can be shown like this:

A ∧ (A → B) ⇒ B

A ∧ B ⇒ (A → B)

B ∧ (A → B) ⇒ A

83
CHAPTER 6

There is a nice symmetry to these expressions that suggests that they encompass
all possibilities. And many authors, following Peirce (see e.g., 1867, 1878), have
focussed on deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. However, thinking does
not always fit nicely into the abstract patterns suggested by logical symbols.
Reasoning by analogy involves using a well known situation to assert something
about a less well understood situation. It can either go from a case to another case,
or from a rule to another rule. For example, if you know that “Chino is a dog” and
you hear someone talking about taking Chino and Tressie for a walk, you might
conclude “Tressie is a dog” by an analogy from one case to another. Going from
“Dogs are animals” to “Cats are animals” based on a sense that cats are similar to
dogs is an analogy from one rule to another. Symbolically, reasoning by analogy
looks much different from the other types of reasoning:

(A ≈ C) ∧ A ⇒ C

(A ≈ C) ∧ (B ≈ D) ∧ (A → B) ⇒ (C → D)

In the next four sections we will describe each of these four types of reasoning:
deductive, inductive, abductive and by analogy, in more detail. In each section we
will include examples from students’ reasoning and point out relationships between
types of reasoning. We will then consider some other types of reasoning that are
relevant to teaching and learning proof.

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

We will begin our descriptions with deductive reasoning, as it is often considered to

be the basis of proof, and hence the development of students’ deductive reasoning is
a goal of teaching proof. In fact, for those whose research perspectives (see Chapter 3)
include a narrow category of “proof ”, and for some of those with a broader category,
deductive reasoning is a requirement of proof. There are many places where one
can read about deductive reasoning. From the syllogisms of the Greeks to modern
symbolic logic, deductions have been the main focus of the formal study of logic.
This is because deduction is the only kind of reasoning which is thought to
establish certainty.
As we noted above, the simplest deductions involve a rule and a case, from which
we conclude a result. They can be characterised by syllogisms. Lewis Carroll’s
Symbolic Logic (1897/1958) includes this one:
All cats understand French
Some chickens are cats
Some chickens understand French
p. 57

In this example the rule is, “All cats understand French,” the case is, “Some
chickens are cats,” and the result is, “Some chickens understand French.” Note that
in this example the case is a general rule as well. When the case is a specific case

84