Scribd
Upload
69 views4 pages

Understanding Reasoning Patterns

Chapter 4 discusses four basic reasoning patterns used in literature reviews: one-on-one reasoning, side-by-side reasoning, chain reasoning, and joint reasoning. Each pattern serves as a method to organize research evidence and claims, progressing from simple to complex structures. Understanding these patterns is essential for effectively connecting evidence to conclusions in research arguments.

Uploaded by

cchamnan270101
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views4 pages

Understanding Reasoning Patterns

Chapter 4 discusses four basic reasoning patterns used in literature reviews: one-on-one reasoning, side-by-side reasoning, chain reasoning, and joint reasoning. Each pattern serves as a method to organize research evidence and claims, progressing from simple to complex structures. Understanding these patterns is essential for effectively connecting evidence to conclusions in research arguments.

Uploaded by

cchamnan270101
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

CHAPTER 4.

Step 4: Survey the Literature 109

Reasoning Patterns

Whether unraveling the plot of a good detective novel or assembling a


jigsaw puzzle, the reasoning is the same as that used to create the lit-
erature review. There are basic patterns in any of these scenarios, and
they can be used to organize research evidence and claims to form the
argument of discovery. Before you proceed to the next task, here are
the patterns you need to understand. Alec Fisher, in The Logic of Real
Arguments (2003) and Critical Thinking: An Introduction (2004),
classifies the basic reasoning patterns into four types: (1) one-on-one
reasoning, (2) side-by-side reasoning, (3) chain reasoning, and (4) joint
reasoning.

These patterns of reasoning move from the simple to the complex. Each
pattern serves as a potential organizer for the logical patterning of the
connections between data groupings. These patterns are the warranting
schemes for connecting evidence to claims.

One-on-One Reasoning

The most elementary reasoning pattern is a simple connection between


reasoning and a conclusion. Its diagram is

R ... C.

In this simple pattern, one reason (R) is enough to justify the conclusion
(C) (as shown in Figure 4.5). This one-on-one reasoning can be proven
as true or false. An example of this type of reasoning would be, “The
noon bell has rung. Therefore, it must be lunchtime.”

Here you have one datum that convincingly leads to the claim.
The map (Figure 4.5) depicts the one-on-one logic—one datum
to justify the claim.

Figure 4.5 The One-on-One Map

therefore
Evidence (Reason) Conclusion
110 THE LITERATURE REVIEW

Side-by-Side Reasoning

A side-by-side reasoning pattern cites several data entries, all of which


offer the same reason to justify the conclusion. Here is a diagram of the
side-by-side pattern:

R 1, R 2, R 3, R4 . . . R n ∴ C.

This is the pattern used as an example of warranting reasoning


used in Chapter 2, and it is the scheme social science researchers
often use in arguing claims for a literature review. This pattern
typically uses the positions of several authors or results of several
research studies in support of the claim; expert opinions, research
studies, statistics, expert testimony, and other data are aligned in
support of the same conclusion. An evidentiary pattern is built as
one would build a stone wall. The result, as shown in Figure 4.6, is
a collection of overwhelming evidence warranting the conclusion.
Side-by-side reasoning is diagrammed using a convergent map.

Convergent maps are cumulative in their logic, which is an apt


pattern to use when several data entries independently con-
firm the conclusion. This is a justified claim because of the
sheer number of confirming entries. For example: “The eve-
ning news forecasts rain; the barometer says it will rain; the
Internet forecast predicts rain; therefore, it will probably rain.”

Figure 4.6 Side-by-Side Reasoning: The Convergent Map

+
Data entry (1)
+
Data entry (2)
+
Data entry (3)
+
Data entry (4) Conclusion
+
Data entry (5)
+
Data entry (6)
+
Data entry (n)

Body of evidence
CHAPTER 4. Step 4: Survey the Literature 111

Chain Reasoning

Chain reasoning is another pattern researchers widely use in building


an argument. Serial in nature, it begins by citing one or more reasons
that justify a conclusion. It uses a one-on-one reasoning pattern as
its foundation. The conclusion of the first pattern then becomes the
evidence for the second conclusion. This line of logic continues until
the final conclusion has been warranted. Here is the diagram for a
chain-reasoning pattern:

(R 1 ∴ C1) + (C1 ∴ C2) + (C2 ∴ C3) + . . . (Cn-1) ∴ Cn.

Notice that this pattern forms as if you were making a daisy


chain (Figure 4.7). Each link of the chain becomes the premise
for arguing the next conclusion. The thought pattern is, “If this,
then that; because of a, then b; because of b, then c.” Each con-
clusion thus becomes the reason that builds the next conclusion,
continuing the reasoning pattern.

You can use chain reasoning to link or develop connections


among reasons to form an overall conclusion. In chain reasoning,
the claim of one set of data will have a bearing on the claim of
another set of data. These linkages can be a qualification of one
claim on another, a causal connection between claims, an associa-
tion between claims, or an evolutionary connection of one claim to
the next. This mapping scheme is useful in tracking chronological

Figure 4.7 Chain Reasoning

Units of
evidence
Reason 1 Units of
evidence
Reason 2

Units of
evidence

Reason 3 Units of
evidence

Reason 4
Body of evidence

Conclusion
112 THE LITERATURE REVIEW

data entries and theory development. For example: “Car engines


burn less gas when they work at lower speeds, so lower speeds
mean less gas consumption; less gas consumption means fewer
toxic fuel emissions; fewer toxic fuel emissions mean less air pollu-
tion; therefore, reducing the speed limit means less air pollution.”

Joint Reasoning

In this case, the reasons stipulated cannot stand on their own but, when
taken together, provide the necessary reasoning to warrant the conclu-
sion. A diagram of a joint reasoning pattern is as follows:

(R 1 + R 2) ∴ C.

Neither R1 nor R2 alone provides enough justification to form the


conclusion. However, R1 and R2 together allow a logically drawn
conclusion. This thought pattern is demonstrated in the following
manner: “If x exists and y exists, then z.” If one of the partial rea-
sons (x or y) is not present, then there is no justified conclusion.
Review the following example: “When the temperature falls below
freezing and enough moisture is present, it will probably snow.”

Use joint reasoning when you find that data entries build a theory
or a position (Figure 4.8). The logic for this map is additive in
nature. Notice that the individual datum each entry represents
does not justify the conclusion on its own merit. Only when the
entries combine can the conclusion be made. The data are parts
that together make up a theory or position.

Figure 4.8 Joint Reasoning

+ + + Conclusion
Data entry (1) Data entry (2) Data entry (3) Data entry (n) Therefore

Body of evidence

Common questions

Powered by AI

The primary difference between one-on-one reasoning and joint reasoning lies in the sufficiency of evidence required to reach a conclusion. In one-on-one reasoning, a single piece of evidence or datum is sufficient to justify a conclusion, allowing for a straightforward reasoning pattern. Conversely, joint reasoning requires multiple data points to work in conjunction, with none sufficient on their own. This necessitates the combination of evidence to form a justified conclusion, highlighting the interdependence of data in constructing arguments .

Understanding different reasoning patterns is significant for conducting a literature review because it enables researchers to effectively organize and connect data to form coherent and logical arguments. By utilizing appropriate reasoning patterns, such as side-by-side reasoning for cumulative evidence or joint reasoning for complex arguments, researchers can build stronger, more persuasive arguments that withstand scrutiny. This knowledge aids in effectively presenting claims and supporting them with warranted evidence, enhancing the review's overall validity and credibility .

Chain reasoning ensures the development of complex arguments in academic writing by creating a series of interconnected claims where each conclusion serves as a premise for the next. This serial pattern allows for a layered approach in argument development, facilitating logical flow and progression that builds towards a comprehensive conclusion. By linking conclusions in a cause-and-effect or chronological order, chain reasoning structures complex narratives or arguments involving multiple stages or processes, such as theory development .

Joint reasoning can address complex research questions in social sciences by combining multiple variables or conditions that collectively justify a conclusion. Since many social science phenomena are influenced by interrelated factors, joint reasoning allows researchers to integrate and assess data points that individually may not offer complete explanations but collectively provide a nuanced understanding. For example, linking socioeconomic status and education levels to explain differences in access to healthcare requires multiple data points to form a comprehensive perspective and develop solutions .

Side-by-side reasoning can, in some contexts, adequately justify conclusions without deep analysis of the relationships between data, primarily when each datum independently supports the same conclusion. The pattern relies heavily on the quantity and corroborative nature of the evidence, such as multiple forecasts predicting rain, which can be persuasive in aggregating a solid conclusion. However, the strength of this reasoning may sometimes be limited without understanding potential interconnections between data, which might affect the assessment of overall argument validity .

An example of joint reasoning can be, "When the temperature falls below freezing and enough moisture is present, it will probably snow." In this instance, neither the temperature falling below freezing nor the presence of moisture alone is sufficient to predict snow; both conditions must be met to validate the conclusion. This pattern demonstrates how the combination of two or more pieces of data is necessary to reach a logical conclusion, emphasizing the need for all components in a multifaceted argument .

Side-by-side reasoning contributes to making a strong argument in literature reviews by allowing the researcher to align multiple data entries or sources such as expert opinions, research studies, and statistics to support a single conclusion. This pattern, akin to building a stone wall, relies on the accumulation of evidence, where the collective weight of several independently confirming entries justifies the conclusion. The cumulative logic of this reasoning pattern helps reinforce claims due to the overwhelming amount of supporting evidence .

Reasoning patterns facilitate the process of discovery in academic research by providing structured approaches to connect and evaluate evidence. Each reasoning pattern—whether one-on-one, side-by-side, chain, or joint—offers a distinct framework for linking data to claims, thereby guiding researchers in organizing complex information and deriving insights. These patterns serve as tools for identifying relationships, building theories, and validating conclusions, ultimately enhancing the discovery process by fostering critical examination and innovative thinking about data and arguments .

Understanding reasoning patterns enhances the critical thinking skills of researchers by providing systematic methods to evaluate and construct arguments. Recognizing patterns like one-on-one, side-by-side, chain, and joint reasoning equips researchers to differentiate between types of evidence and the logical structures best suited to support their claims. This awareness facilitates more nuanced analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information, leading to more robust and credible research outcomes and nurtures a critical approach to assessing and presenting scientific arguments .

Chain reasoning is particularly beneficial when developing arguments that involve causal or evolutionary connections between claims. Its sequential logic, where each conclusion serves as a premise for the next, helps in creating a coherent line of reasoning that establishes connections or developments over time. For instance, demonstrating how one action leads to a series of consequences, like "reducing speed limits results in less air pollution," can effectively be structured using chain reasoning .

You might also like