Reasoning, Inference, and Argument: Topics at the Heart of Correct Reasoning and Debate

Topics which are at the heart of Debate and Logic include reasoning, inference, and argument. In this brief lecture, notice how the three differ and relate to one another.

Debate and Logic primarily deal with only one type of thinking called reasoning. Reasoning is a mental process whereby we sensibly generate justifications, find results, or draw conclusions. As may be inferred from the word itself, reasoning is basically producing reasons as evidence for a certain proposition we wish to establish.

Reasoning and Inference

Reasoning is closely related to inference which is a process that allows us to establish the truth or falsity of a certain proposition from the truth or falsity of other logically related statement/s. Whenever we extract a conclusion from what we have held to be true or false, we make an inference.

Thus, when we know that Manny Paquiao is a Filipino and that Philippines is in Asia, we infer that Manny Paquiao is Asian. Or, when we know for sure that some students did not pass the exam, we conclude that anyone who would announce that all students passed the exam is telling a lie.

Reasoning and inference are very much related in the sense that the reasons we provide (reasoning) allow us to presuppose (inference) a certain conclusion. Just for the sake of distinguishing these two oftentimes interchangeable terms, reasoning is broader for it connotes all forms and manners of ‘providing reasons’ (e.g. defending a stand, elaboration, justifying a decision, exemplification, etc.). Inference, on the other hand, is somehow limited to the process of ‘drawing conclusions’.

Argument

The verbal expression of reasoning and inference is called argument—that is why reasoning and inferring are also called argumentation. Though Debate and Logic necessarily deal with reasoning and inference, the subject’s workable subject matter—something which students can really evaluate—is argument.

An argument is basically a group of statements, one of which is the conclusion, and the rest is/are premise/s.  Technically, it is any discourse in which some statements are used as reason, justification, or evidence to support the claim of another statement. The proposition that is used to support a claim is called premise and the proposition supported by the premise/s is called conclusion.

Conclusion may be something true, false, or probable; or something good/bad, desirable/undesirable. Hence, based on the nature of the claim of its conclusion, there are at least three kinds of argument:

1. An empirical argument has a conclusion which claims that something is observably true, false, or probable.

e.g. All Libyans I’m acquainted with are Moslems. Therefore, most Libyans are Moslems.

2. An analytic argument has a conclusion which is making an analytic claim and is supported by analytic definition.

e.g. UFC’s platform for mixed martial arts competition must be octagon because it has eight sides and eight angles.

3. An evaluative argument has a conclusion which claims that an act, behavior, thing, or event is good or bad; right or wrong; moral or immoral; desirable or undesirable.

e.g. Filipinos should not be discriminated because every human being deserves to be respected and treated with dignity.

Mediate vs. immediate inference

As we have indicated before, an inference is a mental process by which we pass from one or more statements to another that is logically related to the former. Based on the number of their premise, inferences are basically classified into two:

1. Immediate Inference – consists in passing directly from a single premise to a conclusion. It is reasoning, without the intermediacy of a middle term or second proposition, from one proposition to another which necessarily follows from it.

e.g. No Dalmatians are cats. Therefore, no cats are Dalmatians.

All squares are polygons. Therefore, some polygons are squares.

2. Mediate Inference- consists in deriving a conclusion from two or more logically interrelated premises. Involving an advance in knowledge, it is reasoning that concerns the intermediacy of a middle term or second proposition which warrants the drawing of a new truth.

e.g. All true Christians are theists.
Paul is a true Christian.
Therefore, Paul is a theist.

In doing debates, you will find yourself employing many inferences and arguments and evaluating those of your opponents. The various types of useful arguments and inferences and the way to determine their strength or validity are discussed in detail in other lectures in this site. (© by Jensen DG. Mañebog/MyInfoBasket.com)

Also Check Out:
Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook by Jensen DG. Mañebog

Also Check Out: From Socrates to Mill: An Analysis of Prominent Ethical Theories, also by author Jensen DG. Mañebog