Reasoned Argument

A Reasoned Argument is an analytical argument (composed of supporting statements and conclusions) that makes use of reasoning to support a reasoned conclusion.

• AKA: Line of Reasoning, Reasoned Inference.
• Context:
  • It can (typically) consist of a series of premises leading logically to a conclusion.
  • It can (often) involve the use of evidence and logical principles to substantiate claims.
  • It can (often) be found in various forms of discourse, including legal arguments, scientific discussions, and philosophical debates.
  • It can (often) involve different types of reasoning, such as deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning.
  • It can (often) be subject to critical evaluation and analysis to determine its validity and soundness.
  • It can (often) be influenced by the context in which it is presented, including cultural, ethical, and social factors.
  • It can (often) be the output of a Reasoning Task.
  • It can (often) be decomposed into Argument Premises, Argument Operations, and Argument Conclusions.
  • It can range from being a Formal Reasoned Argument to being an Informal Reasoned Argument, based on the context and structure.
  • It can range from being a Valid Reasoned Argument to being an Invalid Reasoned Argument.
  • It can range from being a Deductive Argument to being an Inductive Argument to being an Abductive Argument.
  • It can range from being a Principled Reasoned Argument to being an Intuitive Reasoned Argument.
  • It can range from being a Formally Reasoned (Rational) Argument to being an Informally Reasoned (Common Sense) Argument.
  • It can be used to persuade an audience or justify a decision.
  • It can be instantiated in a Reasoning Act.
  • ...
• Example(s):
  • Deductive Reasoned Arguments, such as:
    • Valid Deductive Reasoning Arguments, such as:
      • "All dogs are mammals. Buddy is a dog. Therefore, Buddy is a mammal."
      • "If it rains, the ground gets wet. It rained today. Thus, the ground is wet."
    • Invalid Deductive Reasoning Arguments, such as:
      • "All cats are felines. Simba is a feline. Therefore, Simba is a cat." (Simba could be another type of feline, like a lion or tiger)
      • "If you study hard, you will get good grades. John got good grades. Therefore, John studied hard." (Good grades could result from other factors, like natural ability or easy tests)
  • Inductive Reasoned Arguments, such as:
    • Strong Inductive Reasoning Arguments, such as:
      • "Every apple I've ever eaten from this tree has been sweet. Therefore, the next apple I eat from this tree will probably be sweet."
      • "The sun has risen every morning for billions of years. Hence, the sun will likely rise tomorrow morning."
    • Weak Inductive Reasoning, such as:
      • "My friend won the lottery. I bought a lottery ticket. Therefore, I will probably win the lottery too." (One person's luck does not necessarily extend to others)
      • "The first three books I read by this author were fantastic. Therefore, all of their books must be fantastic." (The quality of an author's work can vary)
  • Abductive Reasoned Arguments, such as:
    • Sound Abductive Reasoning, such as:
      • "The grass is wet. The sprinklers are on. Therefore, the best explanation is likely that the sprinklers caused the grass to become wet." (While there could be other causes, like rain or dew, the active sprinklers are the most probable explanation given the available information)
  • Analogical Reasoned Arguments, such as:
    • Flawed Analogical Reasoning, such as:
      • "Humans have a heart that pumps blood. Cars have a fuel pump that pumps gasoline. Therefore, the fuel pump is the heart of a car." (While similar in function, a fuel pump and a heart are not directly analogous)
  • Case-based Reasoned Argument: Comparing and contrasting two lines of precedent to argue which should control in a new case.
  • Heuristic-based Reasoned Argument: Interpreting an ambiguous statute by examining the legislative intent and applying rules of statutory construction.
  • Ethical Reasoned Argument: Resolving an ethical dilemma faced by an attorney representing a client, balancing duties to the client with duties to the court and society.
  • Approximate Reasoned Argument: Advising a corporate client on the legal implications and risks of a proposed merger.
  • Analytical Reasoned Argument: Analyzing a contract dispute to ascertain whether there was a breach of contract and what remedies may be available.
  • Practical Reasoned Argument: Drafting a will that effectuates a testator's intent while navigating tax implications and potential challenges.
  • Theoretical Reasoned Argument: Examining the constitutionality of a new law under complex and evolving constitutional doctrines.
  • Creative Reasoned Argument: Crafting a novel legal theory to address an unprecedented technological or social phenomenon not clearly covered by existing law.
  • Domain-Specific Reasoned Arguments, such as:
    • Legal Reasoned Arguments, such as:
      • "If the defendant was not at the scene of the crime at the time it occurred, then they could not have committed the crime. The defendant was out of town when the crime happened. Therefore, the defendant could not have committed the crime."
      • "Under the law of negligence, a person is liable for harm if they failed to take reasonable care to prevent it. The company did not install safety measures despite knowing the risks. Therefore, the company is liable for the injuries caused."
    • Medical Reasoned Arguments, such as:
      • "If a patient exhibits symptoms of infection and has a high white blood cell count, it is likely they have an infection. The patient has a high white blood cell count and symptoms of infection. Therefore, the patient likely has an infection."
      • "Smoking has been shown to increase the risk of lung cancer significantly. The patient has a long history of smoking. Therefore, the patient's lung cancer is likely related to their smoking habit."
  • ...
• Counter-Example(s):
  • a Fallacious Argument, which contains errors in reasoning.
  • an Emotional Appeal, which relies on emotional manipulation rather than logical reasoning.
  • an Irrational Argument.
• See: Inference, Reasoning Task, Irrational Decision, Inductive Argument, Transcendental Arguments, Interpretation (Logic), Proposition, Statement (Logic), Formal Language, Deductive Argument, Logical Reasoning, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Critical Thinking, Argumentation Theory.

---

---

References

2024

• Perplexity
  • A reasoned argument is an argument that uses reasoning to support a conclusion. The key components of a reasoned argument are:
    • Supporting statements or premises that provide evidence or reasons
    • A conclusion which is the claim or inference being argued for
  • The premises provide the supporting evidence that aims to establish the conclusion as true or valid. A reasoned argument uses reasoning, which involves drawing logical connections between the premises and the conclusion being argued for. [1][2]
  • To properly construct a reasoned argument, the premises (supporting statements) must provide sufficient evidence and logical reasoning to support the conclusion. The conclusion should follow logically from the premises and evidence provided. [1][2]
  • In making a reasoned argument, one aims to provide reasons and evidence to convince an audience that the conclusion being argued for is true or valid. The premises are intended to provide grounds or justification for accepting the conclusion. [1][2]
  • For example, to argue for the conclusion "The water is boiling", supporting statements providing evidence could be "The water is bubbling rapidly" and "Steam is rising from the pot". These premises provide reasons and evidence to support the conclusion that the water is boiling.
  • In summary, a reasoned argument comprises premises intended as supporting evidence for a conclusion, with the reasoning connecting the premises to the conclusion. The premises provide reasons to establish the truth or validity of the conclusion being argued.
  • Citations:

[1] http://www.gabormelli.com/RKB/Reasoned_Argument
[2] https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Argument_and_Debate/Arguing_Using_Critical_Thinking_%28Marteney%29/07:_Reasoning/7.02:_Overview_of_Reasoning
[3] https://open.library.okstate.edu/criticalthinking/chapter/__unknown__/
[4] https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-psych/well-reasoned-argument
[5] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/reasoned-argument
[6] https://blog.shabda.co/2022/07/03/reasoning-vs-arguments/
[7] https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/lsat/lsat-lessons/logical-reasoning/a/logical-reasoning--article--intro-to-arguments
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning
[9] https://www.worldsupporter.org/en/chapter/67799-2-what-are-two-ways-reasoning
[10] https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-conclusion-argument-1689783
[11] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion
[12] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/reasoned-debate
[13] https://www.lsd.law/define/conclusion

2016

• (Wikipedia, 2016) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/argument Retrieved:2016-10-19.
  • In philosophy and logic, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion. The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion. The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic, and computer science. In a typical deductive argument, the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth. The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments, the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting. The standards and criteria used in evaluating arguments and their forms of reasoning are studied in logic. Ways of formulating arguments effectively are studied in rhetoric (see also: argumentation theory). An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the symbolically represented or natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.

2004

• http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm
  • QUOTE: "Argument" is the most fundamental concept in our study of critical thinking. Much of this course will be devoted to identifying, developing, and evaluating arguments. We will study valid and invalid forms of arguments, strong and weak arguments, causal arguments, analogical arguments, and arguments based on generalizations. The significance of arguments to critical thinking makes it important for all of us to understand the term, and its relationship to some of the basic language of the critical thinking course.

    The word "argument" is often used in everyday language to refer to a heated dispute, a quarrel, a shouting match. Please take note that we will not be using argument in this sense throughout this course. Instead, "argument," as we will be using the term refers to "a set of propositions, or statements, which are designed to convince a reader or listener of a claim, or conclusion, and which include at least one reason (premise) for accepting the conclusion."

---