Published on
April 17, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 13, 2025
Black-and-white thinking is the tendency to categorize people, situations, and ideas in extreme, absolute terms, such as “good vs. evil,” leaving no room for nuance or neutrality.
Black-and-white thinking examples“If you don’t support everything our party does, you are effectively working for the opposition.”
“If you want to place any limits on speech, then you don’t support freedom of speech at all.”
“This book is terrible because the author portrays the villain in a sympathetic light.”
“If a painting isn’t both realistic and aesthetically pleasing, it’s not art.”
In reasoning and argumentation, engaging in black-and-white thinking makes people vulnerable to certain logical fallacies. In creative writing and other artistic forms, black-and-white thinking can limit creativity and depth, reducing the complexity of characters, plots, and themes.
Published on
April 16, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 4, 2024
Premises are the key points made in support of an argument’s conclusion. They play a crucial role in all forms of reasoning.
Premise in argumentation examplePremise: All even numbers are divisible by 2.
Premise: 4 is divisible by 2.
Conclusion: Therefore, 4 is an even number.
“Premise” can also refer to the background situation that sets up a story or joke. This more colloquial use of the term is common in discussions of literature and the performing arts.
Published on
April 9, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 13, 2025
Analogical reasoning involves identifying similarities between different situations or concepts to make inferences or solve problems. It is sometimes classified as a subcategory of inductive reasoning.
Using analogical reasoning, we can draw upon existing knowledge and patterns to understand new or unfamiliar situations, applying solutions or insights from one context to another.
Analogical reasoning exampleIn discussions of potential limitations on free speech, hate speech is often compared to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Just as falsely shouting “fire” can create a dangerous situation by inciting panic and resulting in real-world harm, hate speech online can also have dire consequences, fueling violence and discrimination.
This argument exemplifies analogical reasoning because it involves observing one similarity between two distinct scenarios (i.e., two very different forms of speech that can both result in physical harm) and arguing for another similarity (i.e., that both should be banned).
Analogy-based reasoning plays an important role in problem-solving, decision-making, and creative thinking.
Published on
April 9, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 28, 2025
Abductive reasoning involves observing a phenomenon and inferring the most likely explanation or cause.
This type of analysis is commonly used in both research and everyday problem-solving to generate plausible interpretations for specific incidents that involve uncertainty.
Abductive reasoning exampleA doctor observes a patient’s symptoms and infers which condition is the most likely cause.
Published on
April 1, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 15, 2025
Inductive reasoning involves making broad generalizations based on specific observations.
Induction is used in various academic and professional settings, as well as informal everyday conversations and tasks. This type of reasoning is especially relevant to problems involving pattern recognition, prediction, and decision-making.
Inductive reasoning exampleSpecific observation: All swans at the local park are white.
Generalization: Therefore, all swans everywhere are probably white.
This inference might seem reasonable based on the available evidence. However, the sample of swans at the local park is too small to merit such a broad conclusion. Studying a geographically diverse sample would show that there are non-white swans, including the black swans of Australia.
Inductive reasoning often relies on the assumption that observed cases (e.g., white swans in a local park) are representative of all cases (e.g., all swans everywhere). This assumption is a common source of errors, or logical fallacies, in inductive reasoning.
