Analytical Reasoning

It is important to develop strong analytical reasoning skills. The ability to think clearly and critically is indispensable to a self-directed life. We must not let other people tell us what to think, for we surrender too much power and put ourselves at the mercy of other peoples agendas if we do. We all have diering opinions and beliefs about the world, and each one of us conceives of the world in a particular way. We all have opinions about whether god exists, whether quantitative easing by the Bank of Canada will cause ination or help stimulate the economy, or whether the Toronto Maples Leafs will ever win the Stanley Cup again. We wont always be in agreement, and our opinions will be challenged at times. Its not enough to simply have an opinion, or believe what others believe. And we cannot expect others to believe what we we believe simply because we believe it. We must have reasons for our beliefs, and at some point we will be expected to provide these reasons. And this will involve analytical reasoning. Do not get caught up on the fact that Im using the word opinion here. A common view is that opinions are radically subjective: an opinion that is true for me very very well be false for you. We must dispel ourselves of this notion. An opinion is simply a judgement (a conclusion) thatalthough open to questionseems plausible. But in acknowledging that opinions are open to question, all we are admitting is that we are fallible creatures who get things wrong at times. This is why we need to justify our opinions. If we can provide reasons for our opinions, we bolster the plausibility of our claims. And there is nothing subjective about this; providing reasons for our claims is a very public thing. And the process by which we do itanalytical reasoningis a general process that requires knowing what makes a good argument a good argument. You may be thinking that this is a broad existential worry, of no worry to engineers. But what I have said can be applied directly to an engineering context. By this point you will be familiar with the design process. Every design process begins with a stated problem. Once you have established what is needed, you can then state what is required in the design.This step is as important is it is obvious. In addition to these requirements, there will be constraints that place limits on the design solution. With the design criteria in hand, design proposals can then be generated. There will be times when multiple design solutions are possible, in which case a decision must be made as to which design to go with. There is no formula that can be applied in such cases. The decision has to be made by real live engineers (you and your colleagues). Each design proposal will have its own set of strengths and weaknesses, and each will need to be evaluated against the backdrop of the selection criteria. This is where analytical reasoning comes into play. Any decision you make cannot simply be based on intuition or a gut feel. I dont want to drive across a bridge whose design was chosen because it felt good at the time. Andpresumablyneither do you. The decision process must be a rational one, where cogent reasons are

2 given at each step of the way. Consider the following example.1 A foot brace is worn by people who suer from foot dropthe inability to control lifting of the foot, or twisting it outwards. You are working with a group of engineers to design a new type of brace. The traditional brace is sti so as to support the limp foot, while remaining suciently exible to allow for the foots range of motion. This is achieved by having a solid piece secured under the foot along with a solid piece that wraps around the back of the leg. A complaint is that this type of brace is bulky, causes foot discomfort due to the thick bottom plate, and makes running impractical. So the new brace must support a full range of motion, prevent twisting, be substantially smaller, and increase comfort. Your team comes up with two proposals. The rst design is an overthe-foot brace. This design is smaller, supports the foot over a wide range of motion while resisting twisting, and increases comfort by eliminating the bottom plate. The second design is an ankle brace with an elastic strap that allows for a full range of motion and greater comfort. This design is smaller than the traditional brace and can be worn with any type of shoe. The drawback is that it does not protect the ankle against twisting. Upon reviewing the two designs, your team concludes that the second design is not appropriate. Your team unanimously agrees to proceed with the rst design proposal. The underlying logic of the decision procedure is summarized in Table 1. (P1) (P2) (P3) We want a foot brace that is small, comfortable, and supports a full range of motion, while resisting twisting. We have two options: a top-of-the-foot brace or an elasticized ankle brace. If we go with the rst design, then we will have a brace which is small, comfortable, and which supports a full range of motion, while resisting twisting. If we go with the second design, then we will have a brace which is small, more comfortable, supports a full range of motion, but does not resist twisting. Clearly we do not want a brace which does not resist twisting. So clearly we do not want to go with the second design. (Hence) we will proceed with the rst design. Table 1:
1 This hypothetical example has been adapted from a case study used at the University of Waterloo, and is based on real events. Courtesy of David Bishop, Oscar Nespoli, 2010, Foot Brace Design for Long Distance Running, WCDE-00025. Waterloo Cases in Design Engineering, University of Waterloo. (Restricted Access: www.design.uwaterloo.ca).

(P4)

(P5) (P6) (C)

Logical Form

This brings us to an important distinction: we must distinguish between content and form. The particulars of the above example are unique to an engineering contextit is an engineering example after all. However, the underlying form of reasoning in the example is general. The underlying form of reasoning is not unique to engineering, and is valid for everyone regardless of context or subject matter. If the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion will also be true, and if we accept the premises, we must also accept the conclusion. The importance of the form-content distinction cannot be overstated. It provides us with a deep insight into analyzing arguments: an argument is good (or otherwise) in virtue of its form.2 Consider the example in Table 2. (P1) (P2) (C) All hoozits are whatzits No whatzits are thingys (Hence) no hoozits are thingys Table 2: Now you might be wondering what hoozits, whatzits, and thingys are. Im not sure what they are either, but we dont need to know that in order to see that the argument in Table 2 is a good argument: if the premises are true, the conclusion will also be true. From a deductive point of view, it is the form of the argument that matters, not the content of the premises or conclusion.3 The point is, from the perspective of deductive reasoning, arguments which preserve truth are good arguments. In such a case we say that the argument is deductively valid : if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true (it cannot be false). In contrast, arguments which do not preserve truth are unreliable (from a deductive point of view). In such a case we say that the argument is deductively invalid : the form of argument may in fact take us from true premises to a false conclusion. But whether the premises and conclusion are true (or otherwise) is an entirely dierent matter. We dont look to the logical form of the argument to determine if the premises and conclusion is true or false.4 We go out and examine the world. So when we set out to evaluate arguments, we need to do two things. First, we need to analyze the form of the argument. And second, we need to determine if the premises and conclusion are true (or otherwise). Consider the examples
2 Aristotle was the rst thinker in the Western intellectual tradition to make the distinction between content and form. In fact Aristotle was the rst person to rigorously analyze and write about acceptable forms of reasoning. 3 Do a uniform substitution of the three terms in the argument in Figure 2 with the words cats, animals, and triangles to see for yourself. 4 There are two exceptions to this: logical truths and logical falsehoods. If a sentence is logically true, it can never be false. For example: I either have a Loonie in my pocket, or I do not have a Loonie in my pocket. This sentence can never be false. If a sentence is logically false, it can never be true. For example: One plus one equals two and one plus one does not equal two. This sentence can never be true.

in Table 3 and Table 4. (P1) (P2) (C) If Boots is a cat then Boots is an animal Boots is a cat (Hence) Boots is an animal Table 3: (P1) (P2) (C) If Greg is a triangle, then Greg is lthy rich Greg is a triangle (Hence) Greg is lthy rich Table 4: The rst thing to notice about the arguments in Table 3 and Table 4 is that they have the same logical form. The second thing to notice is that this form of argument is valid: if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true. The third thing to notice is that the argument in Table 3 is rationally compelling, while the argument in Table 4 is not. The argument in Table 4 is not rationally compelling simply because the premises are not all true. The claim that Greg is a triangle is patently false. I am a human being, not a triangle. The point is, even though an argument may be deductively valid, that doesnt mean we have to accept the conclusion. If we dont agree with the premises of the argument, we dont have to accept the conclusion.

Logical Vocabulary

We analyze the logical form of an argument by looking at the logical vocabulary that appears in both the premises and conclusion. In doing so it is important to keep in mind that there are two types of sentences: atomic sentences and logically complex sentences. Atomic sentences are devoid of all logical vocabulary. In contrast, logically complex sentences contain logical vocabulary. The logical vocabulary consists of conjunction (and), disjunction (or), negation (not) and the conditional (if...then...). We will look at each in turn. Conjunction: Consider the following conjunctive (and) sentence: (1) Global warming is real and is a threat to human life. We can rewrite the constituents of this sentence as Global warming is real and Global warming is a threat to human life. The logical word (connective) is and. We can think of the word and as connecting the constituent sentences together to form a new sentence. An and sentence is true just when both constituent sentences are true. If either constituent sentence is false, the whole

sentence is false. So for example if global warming is not a threat to human life, then the whole sentence in (1) is false. Disjunction: Consider the following disjunctive (or) sentence: (2) The fth digit of pi is either a 5 or a 9. We can rewrite the constituents of this sentence as The fth digit of pi is 5 and The fth digit of pi is 9. The logical word (connective) is or. The word or connects the constituents together to form a new sentence. An or sentence is false when both constituent sentences are false. If either (or both) constituent sentence is true, then the whole sentence is true. So for example, since the fth digit of pi is 9, the sentence in (2) is true. Negation: Consider the following negated (not) sentence: (3) The fth digit of pi is not 5. The constituent sentence is The fth digit of pi is 5. The logical word not does not connect anything, but adding a negation to a sentence does form a new sentence. Negation simply switches the truth value of the relevant sentence.5 The sentence The fth digit of pi is 5 is false. However, the sentence The fth digit of pi is not 5 is true. Conditional : Consider the following conditional (if...then...) sentence: (4) If Jim is a re-ghter then Jim is brave. The two constituent sentences are Jim is a re-ghter and Jim is brave. The logical connective is the if...then.... The if part of the sentence is called the antecedent. The then part of the sentence is called the consequent. Think of a conditional sentence in this way: on the condition that the antecedent is true, the consequent is also true. So on the condition that Jim is a re-ghter, it follows that Jim is also brave. Another way of saying this is: if it is true that Jim is a re-ghter, it is also true that Jim is brave. However, if the the antecedent (the if part) is true but the consequent (the then part) is false, then the whole conditional sentence is false. So if it is true that Jim is a re-ghter, but it turns out that he is a coward, then the sentence in (4) is false.

Premises and Conclusion

Once you have identied the logical vocabulary, you must then clearly identify what the premises are and what the conclusion is. This can be tricky, but there are some typical words which indicate premises and others which indicate conclusions. Here is a list of premise indicators:
5 We are assuming two truth values here: true and false. That is, we assume that each (declarative) sentence of the language is either true or false.

6 since for furthermore in that rst because given that in addition owing to second...

Table 5: Premise Indicators This is not an exhaustive list, but it will give you a good idea of what to look for. As for conclusion indicators, look for words like the following: hence it follows that consequently so thus therefore as a result we may conclude

Table 6: Conclusion Indicators Again, this is not an exhaustive list. English is such a versatile language (and the human mind so creative) that it is practically impossible to come up with an exhaustive list.

Arguments versus Explanations

Now this is where things get tricky. Not only can the words that Ive listed above be used as premise and conclusion indicators of arguments, they can be used in explanations as well. In an explanation you appeal to facts to make some other fact clear. Explanations clearly involve giving reasons, but they are importantly dierent from arguments. Arguments involve giving reasons as well. But in an argument you are trying to persuade someone that your opinion (conclusion) is correct. In contrast, there is no disagreement in an explanation: the parties agree, what they are seeking is a clearer understanding of the why. Consider the following example: (5) Honey bee colony collapse disorder is due to the reckless use of pesticides. If the parties involved agree that colony collapse is a real phenomena, then (5) is an example of an explanation. The phrase due to indicates a reason is being given, but it is not functioning as a premise indicator. But an explanation can morph into an argument (and vice versa). If the parties in the above example do not agree that colony collapse is a real phenomena, then (5) is an argument an attempt to change the skeptics mind. In which case the phrase due to is functioning as a premise indicator. When something is an argument and when it is an explanation will depend on the context.

Extended Example the First

Lets put this all together and apply it to the following example. If tipping did improve service, then taxi drivers would be more courteous than ight attendants. Since we know that taxi drivers are not more courteous than ight attendants, it follows that tipping does not improve service. Steps 1. Is this an argument or an explanation? (Its an argument, as the conclusion is rather contentious (to my mind anywise).) 2. Identify the logical vocabulary. (Ive italicized the logical vocabulary.) 3. Identify the premises and conclusion. (Ive underlined the premise and conclusion indicators.) 4. If we are feeling really ambitious, we can rewrite the argument. The benet of doing so is that it makes the logical structure of the argument fully explicit. There is then no possible way to mistake the conclusion and the premises. It would look something like the following: (P1) (P2) (C) If tipping did improve service, then taxi drivers would be more courteous than ight attendants. It is not the case that taxi drivers are more courteous than ight attendants. Tipping does not improve service.

5. Assessment: This is a valid argument form. So if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. So the obvious question is, are the premises true? Thats an empirical question. We dont want to base our consent on anecdotal evidence, so we would have to devise some mechanism to measure how courteous people are. And if we didnt want to do the work, wed have to nd some study that did the work for us. (My take for what its worth: Im going to withhold judgment until I have a study in my hands and can determine whether the premises are true or otherwise.)

Some Common Forms of Valid Reasoning

Here are some common forms of valid reasoning. This is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination. Think of the capital letters (P, Q, R, etc) as place holders for sentences of English. If you replace the capital letters with any true declarative sentence of English, and you will have a sound argument (I talk about sound arguments in the lecture component of Unit 4). Arming the Antecedent P1 P2 C If P then Q P Q Denying the Consequent P1 P2 C If P then Q not-Q not-P

Disjunctive Syllogism P1 P2 C P or Q not-P Q

Hypothetical Syllogism P1 P2 C If P then Q If Q then R If P then R

Constructive Dilemma P1 P2 P3 C P or Q If P then R If Q then S R or S

Destructive Dilemma P1 P2 P3 C If P then R If Q then S not-R or not-S not-P or not-Q

(Note: The foot-brace example in Table 1 is a complex argument that consists of Constructive Dilemma, Denying the Consequent, and Disjunctive Syllogism.)

Forms of Invalid Reasoning

Here are two very common forms of invalid reasoning involving the conditional. Invalid forms of reasoning are not truth-preserving. That is, they will at times take us from true premises to a false conclusion. (Again, this is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination.) Denying the Antecedent P1 P2 C If P then Q not-P not-Q Arming the Consequent P1 P2 C If P then Q Q P

10

Extended Example the Second

Here is another extended example. Consider the following argument:6 First, if the Leader of the NDP endorses rent control, then he is in favour of restricting the free market. Furthermore if the Leader of the NDP were a socialist, then he would be in favour of restricting the free market. Therefore if the Leader of the NDP endorses rent control, then he is a socialist. Steps 1. Is this an argument or an explanation? (Its an argument, as the speaker is trying to persuade us that the conclusion is true.) 2. Identify the logical vocabulary. (Ive italicized the logical vocabulary.) 3. Identify the premises and conclusion. (Ive underlined the premise and conclusion indicators.) 4. Rewrite the argument. (P1) (P2) (C) If the Leader of the NDP endorses rent control, then he is in favour of restricting the free market. If the Leader of the NDP were a socialist, then he would be in favour of restricting the free market. If the Leader of the NDP endorses rent control, then he is a socialist.

5. Assessment: This is an invalid form of reasoning. The premises might be true, but that doesnt make the conclusions true. We can demonstrate that it leads us from true premises to a false conclusion by using the method of counter-example.7 Remember, the goal is to come up with an argument: (1) that has the same logical form, (2) where the premises are obviously true, and (3) where the conclusion is obviously false. Consider the following counter-example: (P1) (P2) (C) If Greg is a human male then Greg is a human. If Greg were a human female then Greg would be a human. If Greg is a human male then he is a human female.

6 This example has been adapted from an example in Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic (Pearson Education, 2002), 372. 7 I talk about counter-examples in the lecture component of Unit 4.