Lesson 7 Working with the Elements of Reasoning
Looking at the logic of a piece of reasoning involves working round the circle of the elements of reasoning not in any particular order. The elements are part of a whole which critical thinkers can use to analyse a situation, theory or question. Using the elements you can also substitute MY or I to problem solve or develop your own reasoning.
The final question ALTERNATIVES is asked of each of the elements.
The questions below can be asked in the basic process of analysis (you may need to adapt the questions to fit the reasoning e.g. plurals etc)
1. What’s the person’s main purpose in this piece of reasoning? (What other goals or objectives does the person hope to accomplish in this piece of reasoning?)
2. What is the key question or problem the person is addressing? (What are the two or three most important subsidiary questions at issue?)
3. What is the most important information the person is using to reason through this issue? (What other information or data does the person need in this piece of reasoning?)
4. What are the person’s major conclusions? How is the person interpreting this issue? (How does the person answer the main question at issue? What solutions are being offered?)
5. What are the main concepts of the reasoning depends on (How does the person understand these concepts? How do those concepts fit together in the person’s reasoning?)
6. What are the main assumptions the person is making in this piece of reasoning? (What are the crucial unstated assumptions the author is making?)
7. What are the main implications and consequences of the person’s reasoning? (What are some of the unforeseen consequences of this line of reasoning?)
8. From what point of view is the person addressing? (What other points of view are necessary to understand this piece of reasoning, what discipline’s point of view is being used to address this issue? What other disciplines would help). Discipline = sociology, educational psychology etc.
9. What is the context of the issue the person is addressing? What circumstances led up to the issue and to this person’s reasoning? What is the background of the discipline (i.e. scientific, artistic, business) in which this issue is being addressed?)
10. What alternatives are there? (What alternative answers could you reasonably give to the preceding questions? What alternatives are there to the person’s reasoning?)
Based on Learning to Think Things Through, Nosich (Prentice-Hall 2001)
The final question ALTERNATIVES is asked of each of the elements.
The questions below can be asked in the basic process of analysis (you may need to adapt the questions to fit the reasoning e.g. plurals etc)
1. What’s the person’s main purpose in this piece of reasoning? (What other goals or objectives does the person hope to accomplish in this piece of reasoning?)
2. What is the key question or problem the person is addressing? (What are the two or three most important subsidiary questions at issue?)
3. What is the most important information the person is using to reason through this issue? (What other information or data does the person need in this piece of reasoning?)
4. What are the person’s major conclusions? How is the person interpreting this issue? (How does the person answer the main question at issue? What solutions are being offered?)
5. What are the main concepts of the reasoning depends on (How does the person understand these concepts? How do those concepts fit together in the person’s reasoning?)
6. What are the main assumptions the person is making in this piece of reasoning? (What are the crucial unstated assumptions the author is making?)
7. What are the main implications and consequences of the person’s reasoning? (What are some of the unforeseen consequences of this line of reasoning?)
8. From what point of view is the person addressing? (What other points of view are necessary to understand this piece of reasoning, what discipline’s point of view is being used to address this issue? What other disciplines would help). Discipline = sociology, educational psychology etc.
9. What is the context of the issue the person is addressing? What circumstances led up to the issue and to this person’s reasoning? What is the background of the discipline (i.e. scientific, artistic, business) in which this issue is being addressed?)
10. What alternatives are there? (What alternative answers could you reasonably give to the preceding questions? What alternatives are there to the person’s reasoning?)
Based on Learning to Think Things Through, Nosich (Prentice-Hall 2001)
posted by Miz John at 10:51 PM
0 Comments:
<< Home