Reasoning within an argument gives the rationale behind why one choice, for example should be selected over another. Types of reasoning include:

* Abduction: the process of creating explanatory hypotheses.
* Analogical reasoning: relating things to novel other situations.
* Cause-and-effect reasoning: showing causes and resulting effect.
-----o Cause-to-effects reasoning: starting from the cause and going forward.
-----o Effects-to-cause reasoning: starting from the effect and working backward.
* Comparative reasoning: comparing one thing against another.
* Conditional reasoning: using if...then...
* Criteria reasoning: comparing against established criteria.
* Decompositional reasoning: understand the parts to understand the whole.
* Deductive reasoning: starting from the general rule and moving to specifics.
* Inductive reasoning: starting from specifics and deriving a general rule.
* Modal logic: arguing about necessity and possibility.
* Traditional logic: assuming premises are correct.
* Pros-vs-cons reasoning: using arguments both for and against a case.
* Set-based reasoning: based on categories and membership relationships.
* Systemic reasoning: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
* Syllogistic reasoning: drawing conclusions from premises.

you forgot chocolate covered

So, when i buy a pack of cigarettes and take out one of them, i can never put it back.
What gives ?

Rhetoric is an ancient art of eloquent speech and persuasive communication.


On language:

* Figures of speech: Subtle use of language.
* Modifying meaning: Changing meaning to change minds.
* Persuasive language: Particular methods of persuading with words.

Card-stacking

Method

In 'card-stacking', deliberate action is taken to bias an argument, with opposing evidence being buried or discredited, whilst the case for one's own position is exaggerated at every opportunity. Thus the testimonial of supporters is used, but not that of opponents.

Glittering generalities

Method

Use attractive, but vague words that make speeches and other communications sound good, but in practice say nothing in particular.

A sudden silence in the middle of a conversation brings us back to essentials: it reveals how dearly we must pay for the invention of speech.

False replay


Description

Replay their story to them, but vary it from what they have told you. Then watch to see if they correct your story.

You can make very subtle changes to the story and you can make glaringly obvious ones. Notice their response to each type of variation.

A person who is telling the truth may look a little frustrated that you have not quite understood what they say.

A person who is lying may look anxious as they try to stay ahead of themselves and not give the game away.
Example

Discussion

A person who has told the truth will easily be able to detect most falsehoods in what you say (although they may miss a few of the more subtle ones).

tell me, is somebody having trouble understanding your point? or is this a study group for an RM exam i missed?

It's just a random thread to stimulate thought rather than conversation.

who in your life isn't thinking enough?

Reasoning?

crazy whooopbubububuh head banging is way better:)

In my life? Nobody in particular. It's not about me.

I do get the impression that rather than not thinking enough, there might be people out there that are thinking incorrectly.

do you consider starting a thread, for yourself, selfish?

Nothing stimulate thought like a good old batch of copy/paste.

well it definitely took thought to pick out what to copy & paste.

do you think it took a long time to put together the first post?

lol