Reasoning

Reasoning is the ability to think logically to formulate fair

judgements and justify a position. In other words, it is about
identifying, analysing and evaluating arguments.

In our study, in the workplace and in our everyday lives we need to

make decisions, solve problems, formulate judgements and skilfully
persuade. This can be difficult when there is so much information
available, and so many competing perspectives. We could just flip a
coin as a method to determine what to think. This may be correct
50% of the time, but this is not a very effective or reliable method.
We want to make good decisions 100% of the time (or as close as
possible) and be able to provide good justification for the choices
that we do make - so we need to be proficient in the art of
reasoning.

In this section, we will consider the following questions:

• What is an argument?
• Where are arguments found?
• What is the purpose of arguments?
• What types of arguments are there?
• What is the role of evidence? What types should I use?
• How do I locate an argument?
• How do I construct an argument?
• What is the relationship between reasoning and the scientific
method?

1. What is an argument?
The common understanding of an 'argument' typically involves an
emotional and volatile state where people yell and hurl personal
insults. At university, arguments mean something different.

An argument is a structured set of reasons (or objections) that seek

to support (or refute) a central claim. The central claim is called
a contention, conclusion, hypothesis or position - this is what the
arguer/author wants you to believe. Claims that are given in support
of other claims are called reasons. Claims that refute other claims
are called objections or rebuttals.

In short, an argument contains a central claim plus at least one

reason to believe that claim is true (or false in the case of an
objection).

Example 1:
Contention: All university students should receive free public transport.

Reason: It would assist them financially.

Argument: All university students should receive free public transport because it would assist them
financially.

This example illustrates the basic argument formulation of Contention + Reason. Note that the
argument uses the term because to link these two claims.
Example 2:
Contention: The study of religions is vital.

Reason 1: Religions have wielded massive power.

Reason 2: To understand a culture one requires an understanding of their religion.

Argument: Hinnells (2009, pp. 5-6) argues that the study of religions is vital. His reasons are
twofold: firstly that religions have "wielded massive power" (Hinnells 2009, p. 6) and secondly, that
to understand a culture one requires an understanding of their religion (Hinnells 2009, p.6)

In this example there are two main reasons given to support the contention. The contention is in the
first sentence and the two reasons stated in the second sentence. Alternatively, you could combine
the contention and reasons to one, sentence or expand to two or three. Whatever you choose, when
communicating your reasoning it is useful to establish the themes of the reasons – in this case,
power (reason 1) and culture (reason 2).

2. Where are arguments found?

Arguments are everywhere but, of course, that doesn’t mean we
should accept them! They are located in journal articles,
newspapers, books, TV, films, radio, social media, posters, fact
sheets, green papers, websites, and in everyday discussions.

In different disciplines we may argue for or against an ideal, an

issue, a method, theory, or the meaning of information. For
instance:

• social workers may argue about the best policy to achieve

social justice
• philosophers about whether there is a God
• historians about a particular interpretation of history
• lawyers about whether a particular piece of evidence is
permissible
• economists about whether a particular tax incentive will
increase employment
• chemists about whether a particular material is harmful to
human health
 • bioethicists as to whether embryonic stem cell research is
justifiable, or
• scientists about causes and consequences of climate change
Arguments are everywhere but, of course, that doesn’t mean we
should accept them!

3. What is the purpose of arguments?

The purpose of arguments is twofold - to inquire and to advocate.

Inquiry involves looking carefully at an argument in order to

comprehend what the issue is about, the reasoning involved and
the evidence it is based upon. This enables you to form a
judgement about the issue at hand. In assignments you may be
asked to inquire when you are asked to examine, consider,
explore or discuss.

Advocating a point of view is trying to convince others what they

should think about an issue. In assignments you may be asked to
advocate your position when you are asked to argue,
persuade or present a case.
More about explanations vs reasons

Sometimes we think we have an argument but it may be just an

explanation. The difference is slight, but it is important. The main
determinant is whether the information is provided to explain
something which is accepted as a matter of fact, or whether it seeks
to justify something more debatable. For example:

Australian business conditions are the best in two decades because

business conditions rose by 7 points to a record 21 points
(Bagshaw, 2017).

This sentence explains that business conditions increased given the

survey increase. This is not in dispute, but it falls short of telling
you why business conditions have improved.
Or
Australian business conditions are the best in two decades because
there has been an increase in manufacturing and sentiment is high
(Bagshaw, 2017).

This argues why business conditions are the best in two decades

(because of sentiment being high) and there is a further justification
for this claim (given the increase in manufacturing). The claims
could be debated and would need further evidence and evaluation
before we accepted the contention that Australian business
conditions are the best in two decades.

4. What types of arguments are there?

Arguments are often characterised as being deductive or inductive.

Deductive arguments are valid arguments because of their logical

form. This means that if the premises are true then the conclusion
must necessarily be true. This provides a guarantee of the truth of
the conclusion if the premises are correct, hence an argument with
a deductive formulation is compelling (assuming it has true
premises). For example:

If Monash University is in the top 100 universities worldwide then it

is a great university.

Monash University is in the top 100 universities worldwide,

therefore Monash University is a great university.

Validity

Validity is a term that can have different meanings in different

contexts. In logic, a valid argument is one where the premises, if
true, must lead to the truth of the conclusion. In some disciplines,
something that is valid may mean that it is true.
More about logical schemas
In logic, the above argument would be set out in ‘standard form’
which breaks up the argument into its claims (premises) and the
conclusion. Example:


P1 If a university is in the top 100 universities worldwide then it is a
great university

P2 Monash University is in the top 100 universities worldwide

∴ Monash is a great university.
(P1= Premise 1, P2 = Premise 2, ∴ = therefore)

We know this argument is valid because it follows a deductive

schema called modus ponens:
P1 If P then Q

P2 P

∴ Q

There are other deductive schemas which utilise this conditional

“if...then..” formulation (such as modus tollens) and other forms
that are called categorical syllogisms. For example, the Barbara
AAA-1 schema:  

P1 All As are Bs

P2 All Cs are As

∴ All Cs are Bs

These logical schemas derive from Aristotle and provide a means to

check the logical validity of an argument. Often we find that
reasoning is fallacious because it contravenes one of these logical
schemas

Inductive arguments provide a likelihood or probability that if the

premises are true then the conclusion is true. The likelihood or probability
is considered strong or weak, unlike deductively valid arguments where
there is a guarantee of truth. Inductive arguments typically arise where a
generalisation or an analogy is provided, building on a small number of
observations to a generalised conclusion about a given category or class.
(Refer below to see how the scientific method uses observations and
experiments).
A claim resulting from samples, observations, case studies or examples can
lead to a generalised statement or statistical inference about a whole
population.

Example:

75% of the university student sample were satisfied with the catering at their orientation program.

Therefore

75% of the university student population were satisfied with the catering at their orientation
program.

Note: The inference made about the population is based on the sample group and may not be
accurate
5. What is the role of evidence? What types
should you use?
To be convincing, arguments need evidence. Evidence provides
support for claims by providing a foundation for claims people
make. If the evidence is not reliable, it is unlikely that the claims will
be acceptable. Identifying reliable evidence is therefore imperative
for good reasoning. (More on identifying)

At university you will be encouraged to argue for or against a

contention but you are expected to provide appropriate evidence to
support the claims you make. This means that you need to research
and utilise forms of evidence that are appropriate for your task and
discipline. For instance, journals, news articles, research studies,
laws, historical sources, reports, experimental data, statistics, meta-
analysis, interviews and case studies. To ensure your evidence is
reliable and appropriate for your discipline, seek guidance from your
tutor or lecturer.

6. How do I locate an argument?

When you start researching for a topic, you need to locate the key
argument components in texts, that is, the contention, reasons,
objections and evidence. There are a few key tips to assist you do
this:

1. Read the abstract




The abstract in a journal article will identify the key point (contention
or conclusion) the author is making. Central reasons and evidence
will typically also be identified.



Many, but not all, journal articles have abstracts. It is placed at the
beginning of the article and acts as a summary of the issue and its
argument. Abstracts are also included in Library database records,
such as in the Details section of journal article records of the
Monash library search tool (see below).

Example

Click on the highlighted text below:

Des Under what circumstances do new constitutions promote democracy?

cript Between 1974 and 2011, the level of democracy increased in 62 countries
ion following the adoption of a new constitution, but decreased or stayed the
same in 70 others. Using data covering all 138 new constitutions in 118
countries during that period, we explain this divergence through empirical
tests showing that overall increased participation during the process of
making the constitution positively impacts postpromulgation levels of
democracy. Then, after disaggregating constitution-making into three stages
(drafting, debating, and ratification) we find compelling evidence through
robust statistical tests that the degree of citizen participation in the drafting
stage has a much greater impact on the resulting regime. This lends
support to some core principles of "deliberative" theories of democracy. We
conclude that constitutional reformers should focus more on generating
public "buy in" at the front end of the constitution-making process, rather
than concentrating on ratification and referendums at the "back end" that
are unlikely to correct for an "original sin" of limited citizen deliberation
during drafting.

The full record of the above example can be seen on Library

Search.

2. Identify key indicator words




Indicator words are words or phrases which indicate where
argument components are located. They are often placed in the
middle of a sentence, but sometimes may be at the beginning. They
act as signposts to advise the reader whether a contention or
reason/objection follows.



Example 1: Monash is an excellent university since it is in the top
100 universities worldwide.



Example 2: Monash is an excellent university yet it is not in the top
5 universities worldwide.



Example 3: Monash is in the top 100 universities worldwide thus it
is an excellent university.



Example 4: It is argued that Monash is an excellent
university. Given that it is in the top 100 universities worldwide, we
can see this claim is justified.

3. Placement of information



Locating the contention: The contention will typically be
identifiable in the title, the abstract, the introduction or conclusion/
summary. Sometimes it is not obvious what the contention is, or
there may be more than one possibility. In such cases ask yourself:
What is the main point the author wants me to believe? Is the
contention contentious? Is there an implicit (unstated) contention?
Does the reasoning support (or refute) this contention?

7. How do I construct an argument?

The following steps will assist you with constructing arguments:

• Identify the contention: To construct an argument identify a

contention, hypothesis or main point of an issue as a starting
point from which to investigate. This may be derived from a
central claim made by an author, provided to you in an
assessment task, or based on some initial findings in an
experiment. Note that this is a starting point. After you have
identified and evaluated the argument, then you will have a
conclusion.
• Identify reasons, objections and evidence: Locate the reasons
and objections provided to support or refute the contention and
other claims. These will require research and synthesis of
 different perspectives. Also, ensure you establish what
evidence these claims have been based upon, or conduct your
own experiments and research to establish the evidence
foundation.
• Structure the argument: Establish the key themes around
which the evidence and claims revolve to establish the central
reasons. Then determine each line of argument and its logical
structure. This is like a jigsaw - trying to piece together the
claims and evidence to ensure it is logical and coherent.
Once you have identified the argument claims and structure, you
are ready to carefully analyse and evaluate the argument to come
to a conclusion.
Seeing the argument visually - Argument mapping

An argument map is a visual means of representing an argument. It

can be used to sort out the key themes of the argument and then
determine the logical structure of the reasoning. This provides a
framework for the argument to be carefully analysed and evaluated.
This argument map illustrates how an argument might be
structured. At the top is the contention to which all else is directed.
Beneath the contention, there is one main reason which supports,
and one main objection which refutes the contention. Underneath
these, there are more reasons and objections. Each has the role of
supporting – or refuting – the claim to which it is attached.
At the bottom layer is the evidence (e.g. statistics, expert opinion).
These can be attached to any claim, but it is imperative that
evidence is provided at the foundation level. Evidence needs to
provide a foundation for all the related claims, as it is the basis upon
which we should believe them (as per the diagram above).
The great benefit of an argument map is that you can “see” the
argument. It provides you with a tool to manage information from a
variety of sources, identify key claims and establish how they all
relate to one another – that is, to establish the themes and logical
relationships between claims. After this identification has been
made, the map provides a visual tool for
your analysis and evaluation of the argument.

Note that when you construct an argument you may have various
reasons and/or objections at each level. The example shown above
reveals all the possibilities available for reasoning:
• a reason for a contention
• a reason for a reason
• a reason for an objection
• an objection to a contention
• an objection to a reason
• an objection to an objection (rebuttal).
8. Reasoning and the scientific method
The scientific method is the foundational framework upon which
scientific research operates. This method seeks to ask questions,
make hypotheses and test these hypotheses against evidence.
When working with a hypothesis you are setting up a contention to
test with claims and evidence - in other words it is an argument to
which you are responding.
Falsifiability

It is essential that hypotheses are falsifiable. This means that any

hypothesis must be able to be proved false, or refuted, when
sufficient evidence is provided. If a claim or proposition is not
falsifiable, then it is not a valid scientific hypothesis. This does not
necessarily mean it is false or unworthy of consideration, only that it
falls beyond the realms of science. For example, the
hypothesis There is no god cannot be proven false. It is not a valid
scientific hypothesis, but is an interesting area of theological and
philosophical debate. The hypothesis that All swans are white, is
falsifiable, as specific evidence could prove it to be false, i.e. the
discovery of black swans disproves the hypothesis.