From UVA Writing Center

If a claim states what you think, reasons state why you think that. If you went to the doctor and the doctor said "I need to give you a shot in the stomach with this foot-long syringe," you would most likely want to know why. If the doctor says "Because this is the only way to cure the mutant strain of malaria you contracted in Myanmar," then the doctor has given you a reason that may convince you to be poked. If the doctor then went on to explain how the vaccine would feast on mutant malaria, then the doctor has given you evidence to support that reason. Together, the reason and evidence provide support for the overall claim let me impale you with this syringe.

But be aware, reasons are not evidence. This is easy to confuse, so keep in mind that reasons exist in your head rest on top of evidence, while evidence exists out in the world and supports your reasons.

All together, reasons and evidence support claims.

When coming up with reasons, there are a few questions that you can ask to check if your reasons work:

• Do your reasons explain why you think the audience should accept your claim?
• Do your reasons represent judgments not share by your audience? (You don't need to present arguments to an audience that already accepts your position.)
• Do your reasons rest on evidence?

Contents 1 Multiple Reasons 1.1 Parallel Reasons 1.2 Sequential Reasons 2 Types of Reasoning: Inductive, Deductive, Abductive 2.1 Inductive Reasoning 2.2 Deductive Reasoning 2.3 Abductive Reasoning 3 Biased Reasoning

Multiple Reasons

Very few arguments will succeed on just one reason alone, especially in academic writing. To convince your audience, you're going to need more than one reason. And there are a couple strategies to consider when structuring your reasons:

Parallel Reasons

When your reasons are independent of each other, they are parallel. Parallel reasons work like the legs on a table; each leg provides a little support, but not the entire support. Consider the argument "There are too many werewolves in Charlottesville and the population needs to be controlled." Some parallel reasons would be:

• The werewolves are thinning the cattle population.
• The werewolves are eating far too many undergrads on Friday and Saturday nights.
• The werewolves tear around the Downtown Mall, leaving the place in a shambles on full moons.
• Controlling the werewolf population would provide a much-needed boost to Charlottesville's flagging silver bullet industry.

None of these reasons are connected to each other, aside from their connection to the claim that the werewolf population needs to be controlled.

Ordering Parallel Reasons

Two possible ways of structuring parallel reasons are by substance and by response.

• Structuring your reasons according to substance means ordering your reasons by the most substantial reason to the least substantial reason.
• Structuring your reasons according to audience response means organizing your reasons according to what your audience will respond to most forcefully first. In the werewolf example, if your audience is undergrad students, you would want to put the "The werewolves are eating far too many undergrads" first. If you were writing for local farmers, you would want to put "The werewolves are thinning the cattle population" first.

Sequential Reasons

When one reason leads to the next in a chain that builds the argument, then those reasons are in sequence. Sequential reasons work like a tower; each reason is another floor in the building, with the claim at the top. If we take the werewolf argument again, some sequential reasons would be:

• Werewolves are eating far too many undergrads on Friday and Saturday nights.
• When the werewolves eat undergrads, they become intoxicated by the high concentration of grain alcohol found inside most undergrads on Friday and Saturday nights.
• Intoxicated werewolves go on rampages around the Downtown Mall, ruining the whole scene.
• Intoxicated werewolves become belligerent and can be impossible to wake up until they go back to human form.

Each of these reasons are connected to the reason preceding it.

Ordering Sequential Reasons

Two possible ways of structuring sequential reasons are by process and by reasoning.

• Structuring your reasons according to process means following the logical sequence of events in your argument. In other words, think cause-and-effect. The sequence of werewolves eating undergrads, becoming intoxicated, going bonkers on the Downtown Mall, and then becoming belligerent follows a logical cause-and-effect model.
• Structuring your reasons according to reasoning means rather than following the logic of the external event, you follow the process of your audience's logic. Again, this means taking who your audience is into consideration. If your audience works for the city cleaning up the Downtown Mall, you may want to start with the reason about how belligerent intoxicated werewolves can be, because those city workers need to deal with the werewolves on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Your reasons would then work backwards from there.

A paper doesn't necessarily have to structured on just parallel or sequential reasons; successful (and interesting) papers often use a blend of both parallel and sequential reasoning.

Types of Reasoning: Inductive, Deductive, Abductive

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning moves from specific points to a general conclusion. If the Charlottesville City Council found that the cattle population was thinning at a rapid rate, undergrads were being eaten, and big furry belligerent beasts were dominating the Downtown Mall on the weekends, they might judge that there is a werewolf population.

A basic inductive model derives the conclusion from the assemblage of facts judged against our current knowledge. Werewolves are furry, have big ears, are very hungry, and only come out at night. If an individual fits that description, you might judge that the individual is a werewolf. However, inductive reasoning only leads to what is probably true; that furry thing that only comes out at night might also be Colin Farrell.

werewolf

Colin Farrell

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning moves from a generalization to a specific conclusion, and follows a logical chain where one piece of information is judged according to the previous. After making the assertion that there are far too many werewolves in Charlottesville, a deductive conclusion might be that the werewolf population needs to be controlled.

A basic deductive model takes the "if A (generalization), then B (specific conclusion) structure. For instance:

• All werewolves are also people.
• Gunther is a werewolf.
• Therefore Gunther is also a person.

but not

• All werewolves are also people.
• Colin Farrell is a person.
• Therefore Colin Farrell is a werewolf.

Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning is a form in inference, and it's when you test your hypothesis through your argument in order to reach some conclusion. Both deductive and abductive reasoning follow the model "A entails B." In deductive reasoning, B is a consequence of A; in abductive reasoning, A results in B (the reverse of deductive reasoning). In other words, abductive reasoning works to explain what you know. This is the most common form of reasoning done in a reasonable argument.

Abductive reasoning doesn't necessarily start with a solution, but posts a hypothesis, tests it by gathering and presenting data, and then re-checks the hypothesis, adjusting it if necessary. If one thought Colin Farrell was about to go on a cattle-killing rampage on the next full moon, one could out him in a cage and watch him on that night. If he grows big teeth and gets bloodthirsty, he may be a werewolf. If not, that hypothesis would need adjusting.

Biased Reasoning

Reasoning goes off the rails, especially with abductive reasoning, when only data/evidence is gathered that supports the hypothesis you've laid out. If you're determined to prove that Colin Farrell is really a werewolf, and you only base your argument on the furriness, belligerence, and only coming out at night, you're using biased reasoning. This is also very common in political rhetoric, which is a popular theme of many college essays; we see opinion writers and spinmeisters purposefully ignoring or distorting evidence that contradicts their claims in order to drive their pet point home.

To try to avoid bias in reasoning:

• Look for contradictory evidence that may change or challenge your held point of view.
• Try to be as objective as possible when interpreting evidence. Just because Colin Farrell may be belligerent and intoxicated does not necessarily make him a werewolf.
• Present contrary evidence, and either offer a good acknowledgment and response, or change your position.